Valkyrie

[echostation]

Apology accepted, just watch it the next time buddy..

and just as I said, if studio execs are giving him extra money to shoot new scenes and scrap others then that's silly of them to do so as well. This is the second time Singer has ran into budget trouble regardless.

The problem I have with Singer in general is that his films do not LOOK like they have their true budget spent on them. Superman did not look like a 200 million dollar film by any stretch with wasteful spending on growing corn and cutting out expensive sequences with the FX looking very plain and bland and boring for the most part with a horrible storyline.

X-2 a 120 million dollar film again did not look like a 120 million dollar film. It looked more like an 80 million buck flick. His films come across as engaging enough but give Bay or Del Toro or Jackson 120 million dollars and they'll definitely make an X-men film a hell of alot more impressive looking than what Singer used his money on. I'm still scratching my head over how amazing Hellboy 2 looked with a smaller budget yet it looked and WAS so much better than X-2.

King Kong looked like a 200 million dollar film, grand huge engaging film with massive kick ass action. Jackson spent 93 million on the first LOTR and that looked far far far superior to any visual or action scene in X-2 or X-1.

I hope Valkyrie for Singer's sake is amazing cuz I actually pushed for him to do Man of Steel despite him doing a horrible job on SR. He's still an excellent director but he definitely can't be handed money just like that cuz it hardly ever shows on screen.

 

[dude stannis]

Apology accepted, just watch it the next time buddy..

and just as I said, if studio execs are giving him extra money to shoot new scenes and scrap others then that's silly of them to do so as well. This is the second time Singer has ran into budget trouble regardless.

So? Steven Speilberg ran into budget trouble on his first three films. It's a good thing they never let him make another blockbuster again right?

The problem I have with Singer in general is that his films do not LOOK like they have their true budget spent on them. Superman did not look like a 200 million dollar film by any stretch with wasteful spending on growing corn and cutting out expensive sequences with the FX looking very plain and bland and boring for the most part with a horrible storyline.

While I fully agree that Superman Returns cost more than it should've, I think the effects look very realistic bar one horrible shot of Superman at the end. Also look at The Dark Knight. I don't see $185 million at work.

X-2 a 120 million dollar film again did not look like a 120 million dollar film. It looked more like an 80 million buck flick. His films come across as engaging enough but give Bay or Del Toro or Jackson 120 million dollars and they'll definitely make an X-men film a hell of alot more impressive looking than what Singer used his money on. I'm still scratching my head over how amazing Hellboy 2 looked with a smaller budget yet it looked and WAS so much better than X-2.

I just cannot agree on X-Men 2, I just absolutely will not. The movie was definitely $120 million at work. It had better effects and more photorealistic CGI than Hellboy II, Transformers and King Kong. In my honest opinion the fight scenes (as well as the dogfight) where superior to the aforementioned films, whose action scenes often looked like cutscenes from videogames.

King Kong looked like a 200 million dollar film, grand huge engaging film with massive kick ass action. Jackson spent 93 million on the first LOTR and that looked far far far superior to any visual or action scene in X-2 or X-1.

Actually LOTR was shot back to back, which all up cost $300 million. You can't compare Lord of the Rings to X-Men 1, when LOTR cost 300 million and X-men cost less than a Starbucks coffee. If you more acurately compare the plane scene from Superman Returns to King Kong on the Empire State Building, Superman Returns looks like Superman is saving a plane while King Kong looks like a cartoon gorrilla smacking around cartoon bi-planes.

I hope Valkyrie for Singer's sake is amazing cuz I actually pushed for him to do Man of Steel despite him doing a horrible job on SR. He's still an excellent director but he definitely can't be handed money just like that cuz it hardly ever shows on screen.

Yes, I also wanted Singer for MOS because he seems to understand the character better than even some of the posters on here do. At the end of the day it's the producers job to make sure the director is spending the money where it's necessary. I personally don't think Singer should be singled out in this regard as David Fincher has probably threatened to rape the families of every studio executive he's ever worked for when it comes to the questioning of the money he's spending.

 

[Cinemaman]

Usual Suspects cost 6 million.



X2 had a normal budget. It cost the same as Pirates of the Carribean and The Matrix Revolutions. But was cheaper than the rest of them.



Funny. Honestly, I would think he'd be incredibly conservative with his budgets after SR.

That's what I mean. No other studio would have given him anything more than $30m.

I hope so too, he's not Cameron to scream "Give me $300m and I will make the greatest film ever", lol.

 

[Cinemaman]

holly s. The Departed had a budget of 90 milions.

but still he should rather make a movie with 80 milions. we all know that this is not the case anymore.

What you wnat from Martin Scorsese? He made The Aviator for $100m.

 

[Cinemaman]

the approved budget was 80 million, thus he has gone clearly overboard yet again dude_love, if the studio execs approve this sort of mismanagement then they're idiots as well..

BTW, knock it off with the personal insults... you've already lost your point by resorting to that sort nonsensical uncalled for crap on a forum like this so there's no point listening to what you have to say any further... btw, go on, please, insult me more so I can report your ass... come on brother...

It's UA, therefore everything is under the control of Cruise and Wagner. Tom blindly believes that it will be a hit and Oscar favourite.

But everything may come true.

 

[stargazer]

Depends on what kind of success this movie has.
If it's an resounding financial and critical success WB might consider giving Singer another shot . Of course with WB head Jeff Robinov saying that SR underperformed and them wanting to reboot supes , that pretty much crushes SInger's involvement but it's a hypothetical situation

But Singer would face alot of control on the sequel. With rumors that he screwed up with Valkyrie's budget , you can be sure WB would think twice and give singer complete control

According to my source, Singer is still attached to the Superman franchise; he and his writers are working on the story, but if he doesn't deliver, he is out. Alan Horn and Thomas Tull are still in favor of a sequel. I hope it's true; I love SR and really want a sequel by Singer.

oh, and I'll be there opening weekend for Valkyrie! Looks great.

 

[echostation]

but mostpowerful not to diverge from the topic but WB has already clearly stated WB is going for a reboot so the whole question of Singer and his team fo writers is answered... they're not gonna do much cuz they've pretty much been let go of as WB wants to go in a totally new direction

 

[dude stannis]

I think his source probably meant Singer would get a Tim Burton Batman Forever style executive producer credit. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[stargazer]

I know this is off topic. Sorry. But NO, ^^ this is what my source reported on August 25:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Okay, you guys remember that the following was leaked out last week;

Quote: [FONT=Arial,Helvetica](BOF) Batman-On-Film has some news about a Superman Sequel...
I can report that a spec script has drawn the interest of the folks over in Burbank. While it is a direct sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS, it also revamps and adds a lot of the current Superman comic book mythos into the film franchise.

Also, Superman Homepage is adding some speculation to the fire started by Anne Thompson at Variety yesterday.
I received an email earlier this week stating that writers have been hired, and Bryan Singer (who is still attached to direct) is having writing sessions with them twice a week. I'm unable to get the names of those writers at this point in time, but have put in a call to my source to get a response to Anne Thompson's report.[/FONT]

Okay, now we all remember this; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

New news from my source. The interview took place before Singer's spec script got to Robinov's desk. The article just blew things out of proportion. BUT! If Singer fails to deliver on the goods then he and the SR cast are out.

WB knows how hard it was finding an actor to portray Superman/Clark Kent. If they decided to fire Singer and company, WB fear it may sidetrack the franchise for at least a year. WB wants to put out a Supes movie by 2011 or sooner if possible. Finding a new director and cast may take at least a year, meaning filming won't begin until 2010 and the movie may not be released by 2011.

An official statement from WARNER BROTHERS (not an outside source ) will be made within the next few weeks. If Singer fails to produce the script that WB is expecting, then he will be out along with Routh.

Patience..."
"We're all just playing the waiting game. If Singer delivers the script that WB is expecting then everything will be fine. If not, there's an open can of warms. Time to cowboy up, Singer."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------






And he said that his source told him about Ledger for the joker, Brandon for Supes, and the Watchoskys to do Speed Racer before it was announced by anyone else. Here is hoping!

Meanwhile, come join us Routh/SR/Singer fans in our Bring Routh Back writing campaign! Link is in my signature below. Let your voice be heard! Variety already featured our campaign on this blog:
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/09/superman-what-c.html

 

[echostation]

you friend gave u this information on August 25th... it's now been more than a few weeks for WB to make an announcement...

Superman is getting a reboot, end of story, there is no Singer still hanging onto or whatever otherwise WB would not have publically stated it out that it is going for a reboot or a reimagining of the character esp when they clearly said Superman Returns was not the box office smash it was meant to be. End of story

getting back to Valkyrie, I hope it turns out to be good to help salvage Bryan Singer in general before he can go onto make other good films... I want him to do smaller cinema now, stick to more personal smaller cinema cuz that's where he delivers the goods the best... not on big special effects films as he's done 3 big films and has only had 2 good action scenes in the entirity of those 3 films... Nightcrawler's fight at the white house and Superman saving the plane... the rest have been utter drivel.

 

[stargazer]

you friend gave u this information on August 25th... it's now been more than a few weeks for WB to make an announcement...

Superman is getting a reboot, end of story, there is no Singer still hanging onto or whatever otherwise WB would not have publically stated it out that it is going for a reboot or a reimagining of the character esp when they clearly said Superman Returns was not the box office smash it was meant to be. End of story

getting back to Valkyrie, I hope it turns out to be good to help salvage Bryan Singer in general before he can go onto make other good films... I want him to do smaller cinema now, stick to more personal smaller cinema cuz that's where he delivers the goods the best... not on big special effects films as he's done 3 big films and has only had 2 good action scenes in the entirity of those 3 films... Nightcrawler's fight at the white house and Superman saving the plane... the rest have been utter drivel.

No. He told us recently that things haven't changed; Bryan is still attached to the S franchise and working on the story. And knowing this studio and their history with this character.....anything is possible. Until actual fiming starts that is. And I love all of Singer's superhero movies. I want him to keep on doing them. His films have more than just mindless action, they actually have substance. Besides, Nolan is not a master of action either, or do you think BB or even TDK have this mindblowing action??! The plane rescue is easily the most exciting superhero action sequence ever, imo, and Singer directed it. But to each their own. Nice day, sir.

 

[Matt]

This isn't the Superman Returns forum nor is it the unsubstantiated rumor thread. Go post in SR if you want to continue this discussion. Otherwise, talk Valkyrie.

 

[echostation]

Yes sir, my apologies!

Any predictions for what Valkyrie's box office opening will be now that it's been moved up... they need to get the marketing on the road now that the budget is like 100 million!

 

[Matt]

This doesn't seem like a full blown Saving Private Ryan-esque war movie. It seems more like a political thriller set to the backdrop of a war. Kind of like The Good Shepherd. I see it doing somewhere between 25-50 domestically and maybe if its lucky another 50-75 ww.

 

[dude stannis]

This doesn't seem like a full blown Saving Private Ryan-esque war movie. It seems more like a political thriller set to the backdrop of a war. Kind of like The Good Shepherd. I see it doing somewhere between 25-50 domestically and maybe if its lucky another 50-75 ww.

There's going to be a "huge battle scene" at the start, which could help for some misleading marketing. It's going to more in the spirit of a heist flick (Without an actual heist), where a group of guys gets recruited, they forge a plan and execute the plan.

 

[Matt]

There's going to be a "huge battle scene" at the start, which could help for some misleading marketing. It's going to more in the spirit of a heist flick (Without an actual heist), where a group of guys gets recruited, they forge a plan and execute the plan.

If they run their advertisment based on the battle scene (and knowing Singer's action ability it will be rather underwhelming to begin with)...they will get horrible word of mouth. There is no better way to piss off audiences and get bad word of mouth than selling them on a movie that does not exist. Case in point, The Hulk

 

[Sava]

If they run their advertisment based on the battle scene (and knowing Singer's action ability it will be rather underwhelming to begin with)...they will get horrible word of mouth. There is no better way to piss off audiences and get bad word of mouth than selling them on a movie that does not exist. Case in point, The Hulk

...they just didnt understand it!

 

[Matt]

Oh, I agree. The Hulk has genius in it. The problem is, Universal marketed a hard core action movie when it was anything but.

 

[dude stannis]

If they run their advertisment based on the battle scene (and knowing Singer's action ability it will be rather underwhelming to begin with)...they will get horrible word of mouth. There is no better way to piss off audiences and get bad word of mouth than selling them on a movie that does not exist. Case in point, The Hulk

"WRONG" j/k

Well the first trailer didn't have any shooting or combat, so it was merely unfounded speculation on my part. Collateral broke $200 million with minimal action and a great script. Maybe that's their justification?

 

[BMM]

X2 had a normal budget. It cost the same as Pirates of the Carribean and The Matrix Revolutions. But was cheaper than the rest of them.

X2 cost substantially less than both of those films. X2 had a budget of $110 million. Curse of the Black Pearl cost $30 million more with a budget of $140 million, and Revolutions cost $40 million more with a budget of $150 million.

The X-Men films were terribly underfunded, but, considering they have more super-powered beings than Iron Man, Fantastic Four: ROSS, Hulk, the Incredible Hulk, and Spider-Man 3 combined, they did about all they could with what they had... and from a studio like Fox no less.

Funny. Honestly, I would think he'd be incredibly conservative with his budgets after SR.

He needs to be.

 

[dude stannis]

X2 cost substantially less than both of those films. X2 had a budget of $110 million. Curse of the Black Pearl cost $30 million more with a budget of $140 million, and Revolutions cost $40 million more with a budget of $150 million.

Serves me right for using Wikipedia. Sorry about that.

The X-Men films were terribly underfunded, but, considering they have more super-powered beings than Iron Man, Fantastic Four: ROSS, Hulk, the Incredible Hulk, and Spider-Man 3 combined, they did about all they could with what they had... and from a studio like Fox no less.

Exactly, stuff like the White House opening, Wolverine taking out a special forces unit, a dogfight and Alkalai lake where better than anything in the movies you've mentioned (Aside from Iron Man). X-2 could've had another 40 million in it's budget and still been a smashing success.

He needs to be.

Too right. Although to be fair with Valkyrie it was because of a screw up.

 

[Sava]

Oh, I agree. The Hulk has genius in it. The problem is, Universal marketed a hard core action movie when it was anything but.

i was kidding with my earlier post but yeah, i agree.

 

[BMM]

Serves me right for using Wikipedia. Sorry about that.

No problem.

Exactly, stuff like the White House opening, Wolverine taking out a special forces unit, a dogfight and Alkalai lake where better than anything in the movies you've mentioned (Aside from Iron Man). X-2 could've had another 40 million in it's budget and still been a smashing success.

Too right. Although to be fair with Valkyrie it was because of a screw up.

Right now, Singer is taking crap from dejected fanboys and people who just don’t like him in the first place. Because of one misstep, they would like to paint him as though he’s the most reckless director in Hollywood. Of course, that’s not necessarily true. A lot of directors experience similar problems at some point in their careers. For instance, Robert Zemeckis, who is routinely recommended as a directorial choice for a Superman movie has had 3 out of his last 5 movies perform just as poorly, if not much worse, than Superman Returns. Missteps happen. Fanboys are just fickle… sometimes, annoyingly so.

 

[dude stannis]

I like you, BMM you're a smart guy.

If today's fanboys where around in the 70's Speilberg would've been run out of Hollywood because of 1941.

 

[BMM]

Thanks.