Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

All of what you have said has gives me hope too. I like Snyder's visual style so that doesn't worry me at all. My worries are about having a story that is intriguing and satisfying and well told. Having Nolan on board gives me hope that we will achieve a good and well told story.

 

How many failed films can we name that pulled out all the stops?

Everyone that makes a film wants "to get it right". How few do?

 

Oi not this discussion again. I guess we'll be cycling through old discussion topics over the next year. I understand the hesitation over Snyder but as I have argued earlier in the thread (much earlier) I think people are going to be surprised by "Man of Steel". This is going to be a different type of film from Snyder...and the reason I say that is the influence of Christopher Nolan. So far what we've seen set pics wise has got me excited but yeah I understand the hesitation, especially after "Sucker Punch" "bombed" at the box office. Fans are naturally going to react in a negative way. I choose not to in this case. There are too many positive factors so far.

 

I actually don't get the hate for Watchmen. It's almost a scene for scene translation of the graphic novel. I enjoyed it. I think Snyder is very good at visuals but has problems with story. Nolan producing should correct that.

 

Nolan is one of the best directors working today. No argument.

At the same time, however, his stuff has been--in every movie he's made--a lot darker than what one expects from the Superman character. We can only assume Nolan can handle something outside of a more...noirish...genre.

 

If reports I've seen are true Chris did a couple of re-writes of the script last summer (just before filming started on The Dark Knight Rises) when it was having problems. This was before Kurt Johnstad was brought up to do touch ups. Jonah Nolan co-wrote it with David Goyer I believe. As far as the directing has gone, I think Nolan has been quoted as that is all Synder, Zack has free reign where that is concerned.

 

Watchmen is the ONE comic in which doing that misses the point completely. It's almost amazing that they didn't realise that.

 

Exacty! The whole point of the comic is that in this world Superheroes have no sense of grandeur. Other than Doc Manhattan they are just normal people in costumes. They are not cool, ass kicking badasses. They are actually pathetic. It should have had a simple naturalistic style. Its a character drama and mystery, not an action story. Nolan would have been better suited for it.

 

I'm perfectly aware that there are no guarantees. All I'm saying is that I have faith the movie will turn out all right. If it doesn't, we'll have another failure of a Superman movie on our hands, on top of the Green Lantern bomb. So either way, things will get interesting.

 

I was lukewarm on the choice of Snyder but the casting of the movie has been excellent. If the rest of it is as good as the cast, it should be fine.

 

So being slavishly faithful to the comic wasn't being slavishly faithful to the comic? Yeah, I don't get that. It was pitch perfect to me.

 

The comic exploited the comic book medium in ways only a comic could. Its sole purpose was to deconstruct and critique. Mindlessly translating panels loses 99% of what's actually going on.

Unless you think that Watchmen is nothing more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys in which case, yeah, it was pitch perfect.

 

I'm not talking so much about his attitude, but the way he appears on screen-- with the dramatic lighting and the bold colors and the slow-motion camera moves that Snyder is so very good at.

Obviously I wouldn't want the whole freakin movie to look like that (which was where Watchmen and Sucker Punch went wrong), but it would certainly be cool as hell to see SOME of that in a Superman movie, I think.

 

No, I got the deconstruction in both the movie and the book. I guess when it comes to live action I can just see more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys.

 

In other words, "don't make a movie of Watchmen". That doesn't really work as a critique of the film.

 

The problem with Watchmen (well, besides using a song other than Roy Orbison's version of "the Comedians" at the funeral scene), which I did enjoy, was that trying to jam everything into the movie that was in the book, simply because Snyder thought fanboys "demanded it," led to a rushed and disjointed movie in some spots.

For example: the Rorshach origin was shoehorned in. In the novel, you had an entire issue to develop the relationship between Kovacs and the psychologist. It had time to build to something and, as a result the doctor's realization, along with the audience's, of what had happened to the girl was horrifying. In the film, you had Rorschach stating "you can't get in my head, doctor" and then, thirty seconds later, giving the shrink--and us--a blow by blow of his encounter with the child killer and the dogs.

 

^Then again, the same could be said for nearly every movie based upon a book.

 

Yeah, the spectacular adherence to genre conventions was purely ironic.

 

Yeah, it's not like they had secret identities, wore tights, used fantastic gadgets, had superpowers, skulked in secret hideouts or anything like that in the graphic novel. How ironic.

 

Yes, in the graphic novel it was ironic.