Will Sucker Punch bombing affect Superman?

[KalMart]

The unfortunate thing is that some of the sentiment expressed here is 'I hope they keep a tight leash on Snyder' and what not. When has studio nanny-ing over a director...keeping him in check and limiting his control./input...ever been credited for a really good film? Regardless of the director's style, it can only hurt how well the film is put together if he feels imprisoned from making decisions. With all the 'director's cut' DVDs et al....you'd think that anyone interested in film would hold creative freedom in high regard, unless you just don't want a particular filmmaker to fully use their artistic sensibilities. And who exactly will be holding that 'leash'....another director? Why not just have him make the film instead?

For example...if Peter Jackson were doing one of these films, wouldn't you want Peter Jackson to do what Peter Jackson does? So even though I don't think Sucker Punch/300/Watchmen guarantees that Superman will be a mess or yet another dark Snyder-Visual-fest (as he's talked bout in interviews), it's only natural that some people would be at least a bit worried if they don't like that. Because to some extent, you're asking a director to not be himself, creatively.

Again, I still think it's possible that he can apply his 'craftsmanship' and technical ability to something of a different style. Most key people who work in film who aren't directors do. But for a director, it's a tougher task to think like another artist. I think the big hope is that the actual story he's given to film is very strong and tells itself very well, so that he can concentrate on making it look as epic and impressive on the screen as possible. In a lot of ways, that's what Ridley Scott does...it's almost like he can't tell the difference between a good script and a crap one...he just films the heck out of it. Some end up being really good, and some end up being awful. Hopefully, Snyder doing Superman will be like Scott doing Alien, or Thelma & Louise, or to some extent Blade Ruinner...and not G.I. Jane, or White Squall.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Thats funny how things go. I thought 300 and Watchmen to be MUCH BETTER movies than Inception but that's just me. Now because of Dark Knight, he is the ****ing man. Really, the success of Dark Knight, imo, has little to do with Nolan but with the amazing qualities of characters like Batman and the Joker. He just transposed them into the screen mantaining the spirit from the comics, finally.

If Snyder does the same, he will be hailed as God too.

 

[KRIM]

People want a short leash on Zack because he hasn't definitively gained the confidence in fully driving the wheel. He seems to be at his best when he's being supported by a factor outside his control. Be it the story, the actors, or the nature of the material.

Full directorial control doesn't always translate to great products. Many times it just leads to an ambitious mess. Jackson/Kong, Lee/Hulk, Singer/SR, Snyder/SP -- all being good examples of studio-free projects that didn't necessarily yield terrific results. I can understand the trepidation behind a film that is held under scrutiny by the studio, but most people really just want something that doesn't get out of hand as a result of carte blanche direction.

For the most part I think it's more of faith in Nolan and Goyer providing a stable enough foundation for Zack to translate to the screen, rather than relying on studio heads.

 

[KalMart]

Thats funny how things go. I thought 300 and Watchmen to be MUCH BETTER movies than Inception but that's just me. Now because of Dark Knight, he is the ****ing man. Really, the success of Dark Knight, imo, has little to do with Nolan but with the amazing qualities of characters like Batman and the Joker. He just transposed them into the screen mantaining the spirit from the comics, finally.

If Snyder does the same, he will be hailed as God too.

I have to disagree...I think BB and TDK's success has primarily to do with Nolan's skill as a filmmaker. In fact, most films are just as dependent on their creative direction...unless it's a pure movie-star-vehicle, which doesn't always work out either. If you gave that same material from BB/TDK (which he also had a strong creative hand in adapting/creating to screenplay) to a lesser filmmaker, you'd have a lesser film.

If it were as easy as you're making it out to be, you'd have a ton more excellent films from all over. But as it stands, they're still relatively rare.

 

[KalMart]

People want a short leash on Zack because he hasn't definitively gained the confidence in fully driving the wheel. He seems to be at his best when he's being supported by a factor outside his control. Be it the story, the actors, or the nature of the material.

Full directorial control doesn't always translate to great products. Many times it just leads to an ambitious mess. Jackson/Kong, Lee/Hulk, Singer/SR, Snyder/SP -- all being good examples of studio-free projects that didn't necessarily yield terrific results. I can understand the trepidation behind a film that is held under scrutiny by the studio, but most people really just want something that doesn't get out of hand as a result of carte blanche direction.

For the most part I think it's more of faith in Nolan and Goyer providing a stable enough foundation for Zack to translate to the screen, rather than relying on studio heads.

True...but we're not talking about a solid director-for-hire like a John McTiernan or what have you. We're talking about someone with a very specific style like Snyder or Burton. For example...I don't like Burton's movies or his style...and if I heard he was directing a movie that I was interested in, I wouldn't just want him to be kept under control, etc...I'd want a completely different director. Even if he said he was going to do it differently...I'd rather have someone else who's right up that alley, than this one's 'different', y'know?

And in terms of 'getting out-of-hand'....that's usually gauged by how far over budget and schedule they go, not how things are being done creatively....which is much harder for studios to monitor. With Snyder, you don't really hear a lot of talk about exorbitant spending and ballooning schedules, like the $210M spent on SR for example. You only hear the backlash of the results on screen. If anything, it seems that he's pretty efficient when it comes to actually getting things in the can and to the theater...which deserves credit in and of itself. So if he's not blowing the budget or going months over schedule, but still doing his stylistic thing...how exactly would they keep a 'tight leash' on him to control how the film will be? It's not like they'll be seeing dailies and asking for 'more action'...he'll have loads of that.

Like I said, maybe he can change things around for Superman, and if he does and it works, then kudos. But it's understandable as to why that's at least a slightly worrisome prospect for some, in this case.

 

[Spoonman]

Thats funny how things go. I thought 300 and Watchmen to be MUCH BETTER movies than Inception but that's just me. Now because of Dark Knight, he is the ****ing man. Really, the success of Dark Knight, imo, has little to do with Nolan but with the amazing qualities of characters like Batman and the Joker. He just transposed them into the screen mantaining the spirit from the comics, finally.

If Snyder does the same, he will be hailed as God too.

I think you are contradicting yourself on the very same paragraph. The fact that Batman and the Joker were transported so well to the screen has A LOT to do with Nolan actually, to tranport those traits so faithfuly and properly given the difference in medium actually requires skills, not every director is going to give you a great film just becasue he put the characters on screen just as they are on the comics, is not that simple really.

 

[Marvin]

Thats funny how things go. I thought 300 and Watchmen to be MUCH BETTER movies than Inception but that's just me. Now because of Dark Knight, he is the ****ing man. Really, the success of Dark Knight, imo, has little to do with Nolan but with the amazing qualities of characters like Batman and the Joker. He just transposed them into the screen mantaining the spirit from the comics, finally.

If Snyder does the same, he will be hailed as God too.

that's not batman in those films

 

[jmc]

Thats funny how things go. I thought 300 and Watchmen to be MUCH BETTER movies than Inception but that's just me. Now because of Dark Knight, he is the ****ing man. Really, the success of Dark Knight, imo, has little to do with Nolan but with the amazing qualities of characters like Batman and the Joker. He just transposed them into the screen mantaining the spirit from the comics, finally.

If Snyder does the same, he will be hailed as God too.

TDK being as great as it was had everything to do with Nolan.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Well, i give props to Nolan because he understands the characters as they are. But really the success, to me, has more to do with the fact that Batman is a great character and his environment is awesome. Nolan transposed him faithfully and didnt let his ego affect it. Really, the story for Dark Knight has been told a lot of times in the comics and TAS. Joker being a crazy bastard, Harvey going from a honest attorney to a tragic character, Batman losing someone he loves, etc. It doesnt surprise me one bit. The average joe are the ones who never got to see the real Batman of the comics before and how cool and awesome he is. For example, my dad thought it was cool what happened to Harvey and etc and I said...well...the movie just followed the comics, really.

If Snyder can do the same with Superman, thats great!

 

[jmc]

You've pretty much just dismissed Chris Nolan as a film maker with that statement.

 

[KalMart]

Well, i give props to Nolan because he understands the characters as they are. But really the success, to me, has more to do with the fact that Batman is a great character and his environment is awesome. Nolan transposed him faithfully and didnt let his ego affect it. Really, the story for Dark Knight has been told a lot of times in the comics and TAS. Joker being a crazy bastard, Harvey going from a honest attorney to a tragic character, Batman losing someone he loves, etc. It doesnt surprise me one bit. The average joe are the ones who never got to see the real Batman of the comics before and how cool and awesome he is. For example, my dad thought it was cool what happened to Harvey and etc and I said...well...the movie just followed the comics, really.

If Snyder can do the same with Superman, thats great!

Again...if it was that simple...even you could do it.

 

[KRIM]

True...but we're not talking about a solid director-for-hire like a John McTiernan or what have you. We're talking about someone with a very specific style like Snyder or Burton. For example...I don't like Burton's movies or his style...and if I heard he was directing a movie that I was interested in, I wouldn't just want him to be kept under control, etc...I'd want a completely different director. Even if he said he was going to do it differently...I'd rather have someone else who's right up that alley, than this one's 'different', y'know?

Well, using Burton as an example -- how did you like his Batman films? It's widely known B89 was a prime example of a studio pulling strings, while BR is where Tim really got to give his own take on the material. I personally love both, but I can absolutely see why most have more affinity towards the first. And while not given full control, you could still see traces of his style littered throughout the film, just not in abundance. I wouldn't mind something like that being handled here.

And in terms of 'getting out-of-hand'....that's usually gauged by how far over budget and schedule they go, not how things are being done creatively....which is much harder for studios to monitor. With Snyder, you don't really hear a lot of talk about exorbitant spending and ballooning schedules, like the $210M spent on SR for example. You only hear the backlash of the results on screen. If anything, it seems that he's pretty efficient when it comes to actually getting things in the can and to the theater...which deserves credit in and of itself. So if he's not blowing the budget or going months over schedule, but still doing his stylistic thing...how exactly would they keep a 'tight leash' on him to control how the film will be? It's not like they'll be seeing dailies and asking for 'more action'...he'll have loads of that.

Truthfully I think the part of managing has already taken care of itself before Snyder even came aboard. You're right, the one facet that studios would likely demand (action) is fully capable with Zack. It's when he injects his own influence by way of story or character that it tends to just fall a bit flat, in spite if his ideas are actually great.

Cue Nolan/Goyer. I've heard enough from Zack's mouth in the past week that gives me the impression he has a blueprint to work off of, that isn't necessarily how he would've handled things. The very fact that he only came aboard because he had to be convinced (after initially rejecting), tells me he doesn't even have his own vision for this character. It would be harsh to describe this as sinister puppeteer scenario, but the strings aren't exactly being hidden. And I don't think it's bad in this case. Clearly Zack sees potential, and so does Chris if he even bothered to approach him. The symbiosis could work out great. But there is emphasis on that give-and-take relationship.

 

[KRIM]

Well, i give props to Nolan because he understands the characters as they are. But really the success, to me, has more to do with the fact that Batman is a great character and his environment is awesome. Nolan transposed him faithfully and didnt let his ego affect it. Really, the story for Dark Knight has been told a lot of times in the comics and TAS. Joker being a crazy bastard, Harvey going from a honest attorney to a tragic character, Batman losing someone he loves, etc. It doesnt surprise me one bit. The average joe are the ones who never got to see the real Batman of the comics before and how cool and awesome he is. For example, my dad thought it was cool what happened to Harvey and etc and I said...well...the movie just followed the comics, really.

If Snyder can do the same with Superman, thats great!

Easier said than done. Yes, the enriched characters provide a great platform to excel -- but only when the artist has the talents to take full advantage of it. In this way Batman and Joker are merely tools for the person to utilize in their own way.

You can build the most technologically impressive aircraft known to man, but if you give that driver's seat to a non-pilot, you might as well have built a wooden plane.

 

[Zack Snyder]

To answer creator of thread.




NO.

 

[KalMart]

Well, using Burton as an example -- how did you like his Batman films? It's widely known B89 was a prime example of a studio pulling strings, while BR is where Tim really got to give his own take on the material. I personally love both, but I can absolutely see why most have more affinity towards the first. And while not given full control, you could still see traces of his style littered throughout the film, just not in abundance. I wouldn't mind something like that being handled here.

Not very much, and the same goes for just about all his films....in which you see his distinct style, string-pulling or not.

Truthfully I think the part of managing has already taken care of itself before Snyder even came aboard. You're right, the one facet that studios would likely demand (action) is fully capable with Zack. It's when he injects his own influence by way of story or character that it tends to just fall a bit flat, in spite if his ideas are actually great.

Well...based on the Sucker Punch reviews...story and character are where things were remarkably vacuous. So if someone isn't letting him address that...it won't be much of a difference from before, will it?

Cue Nolan/Goyer. I've heard enough from Zack's mouth in the past week that gives me the impression he has a blueprint to work off of, that isn't necessarily how he would've handled things. The very fact that he only came aboard because he had to be convinced (after initially rejecting), tells me he doesn't even have his own vision for this character. It would be harsh to describe this as sinister puppeteer scenario, but the strings aren't exactly being hidden. And I don't think it's bad in this case. Clearly Zack sees potential, and so does Chris if he even bothered to approach him. The symbiosis could work out great. But there is emphasis on that give-and-take relationship.

That's why I say that on the other hand, if you can look past the immediate signature style and approach to Snyder's past films, there might be some technical/visual craftsmanship that he can apply and find equally satisfying. I liken it to being a studio musician or record producer. He may not personally prefer a certain kind of music, but if he's recording an artist of that ilk, it's still his job to make that album sound as good as it can...applying the skills and techniques that are relevant to ALL music and making it work FOR that artist/style, rather than around it. In my work as a film editor, I find myself approaching it like that all the time, because it's my job...both technically and creatively. And if Snyder didn't think he could do that, he probably wouldn't have taken the gig.

It's just that I would expect that from a different kind of competent director like a McTeirnan (of the 80's), or a younger up-and-comer like Nolan before BB/Singer before Xmen. It's a bit harder to when we're talking about someone who's at this point so stylistically established, y'know? not impossible, but a large pill to swallow for some.

 

[EliteF50]

I though Sucker Punch was amazing, but since no one else seems to agree, I think Zack will try even harder with Superman to prove himself once again.

 

[KalMart]

Put it this way....for those who thought Sucker Punch was bad...it's only natural if there's concern over the upcoming Superman project, but not a need for panic.

 

[Zack Snyder]

There is no relation to these type of films. By the time MOS comes out (ya still going with that title like everyone else) people will have forgotten about SP and probably never know the same director did it anyways.

 

[KalMart]

There is no relation to these type of films. By the time MOS comes out (ya still going with that title like everyone else) people will have forgotten about SP and probably never know the same director did it anyways.

Would you be as comfortable with the same prospect if they had chosen Uwe Boll or Brett Ratner? Forget the past...you won't even recognize it as the same director...and so on...?

 

[Zack Snyder]

I'm talking outside of the small internet Superman fanboys such as us, that pay attention to such details. The general public wouldn't even see a connection and there will be no effect.

 

[KalMart]

I'm talking outside of the small internet Superman fanboys such as us, that pay attention to such details. The general public wouldn't even see a connection and there will be no effect.

Right, but this has moved into centering around the movies we've actually seen from the director. Maybe better for the other Snyder thread. I agree that Sucker Punch doing badly won't create a looming cloud of bad mojo for Superman....except for critics/writers that hated it so much that they'll bring it up at the mere mention of Superman. Like you said, bad movies are quickly forgotten unless some sort of legend arises around their badness...like Batman & Robin. But as far as from a movie standpoint and the prospects...the actual causes for Sucker Punch not doing well (if it indeed suffers form bad word of mouth from here on in) are a concern for some when it comes to Superman. Not so much for opening wknd numbers, but for a similar audience/critic reaction upon opening. We have yet to see.

Heck...you never know. Sucker Punch may pick up steam and be a sales leader when all's said and done. Thanks to a "It's so bad, you have to see it to believe it!" campaign. And if that's the case, we'll be talking about how a huge box-office has no effect on Superman.

 

[Octoberist]

I think Zack is a smart enough guy and..has an idea what may went wrong with Sucker Punch (after all, he did direct that and the Owl movie all at once) and that's why he wants to hold back his visual style with Superman.

He has a lot of people behind him for Superman, with Nolan, so I think the stakes are even higher with this one. More so than Watchmen.

 

[Astrodust]

I'm kind of worried now that Superman won't be a fun film. Sucker Punch was tedious and depressing.

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes. Because there's a math to this stuff. By noon on Friday in L.A., executives will know exactly how the weekend will fare thanks to the numbers they get in.

Right now, Sucker Punch is going to do in the low $20s and based on the Saturday bunch that will spike business for Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2, it could very well not open at #1.

So anything less that #1 is bombing?

 

[CrypticOne]

Thinking about it, Sucker Punch will probably have no affect on Superman. You got to remember, Sucker Punch was Snyder's baby. His script, his work. Superman is being written by Nolan and Goyer.