Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[The Borgified Corpse]

Comparing a director's previous films and projecting concerns for a totally different project seems to be a redundant thing to me.

Except that he brought the exact same stylistic approach to both 300 & Watchmen even though those 2 projects should have been totally different from each other. I'm terrified that this penchant for the ultraviolence will end up being the throughline for his directing career and will end up contaminating his Superman movie beyond repair. Not to say there isn't a time & a place for Snyder's style. I'd love to see him do an adaptation of Dark Knight Returns. But I have a sinking feeling that Snyder will end up being just as boneheadedly inappropriate a choice for Superman as Tim Burton was.

This is true. While I have some issues with Synder's directorial ticks, "Watchmen" is an almost too faithful adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbson's graphic novel.

I only read the book shortly before the movie came out, so I'm no expert, but it still felt to me like Snyder glamorized the characters and action FAR too much, and turned everybody into a bunch of slick, ass-kicking superheroes.

He might have captured the look of the comic really well, but not the tone.

Exactly my point. Watchmen is supposed to be a deconstructionist take on a bunch of pathetic has-beens. Snyder turned it into a glorification of sociopaths beating the shit out of people in super-slow-mo.

It makes it all the more appropriate that Gibbons is credited on the movie and Moore is not, since Snyder painstakingly recreates all of Gibbons' comic frames but can't seem to wrap his head around any of Moore's intellectual content. He knows exactly what the comic book said but has no understanding of its meaning.

I also have to question the intelligence & sanity of a man who can make a movie like Sucker Punch with teenage girls kicking ass in short skirted uniforms and yet insist that it's not an exploitation film.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ I think fans are scared because of what has happened with prior "Superman" films. They are so desperate to have one succeed and be both a critical and box office hit that they're tentative. Zach Snyder was a controversial choice due to this style no doubt about that. Everything he has said before about the film and Superman in general makes me think we should at least give him a chance before jumping all over and saying this is gonna be a flop. We've not even finished casting, or got an actual real synopsis of the plot yet and already this film has divided fans. I dunno I just have been a big fan of the casting so far. Nothing has jumped out of me and said oooh I hate this yet. When something does I'll bitch about it.

 

[KB24]

If ever there was a franchise that fans should be scared of, it's Superman. TPTB should have really just left it alone after the first 3. And even 3 was a lot like that sub par Return of the Jedi feeling. Much as I love Supergirl in its badness, they were milking this franchise with that and Quest for Peace so badly! Lois and Clark and Smallville ran their course just fine as well. My, do you remember that brief Superboy tv show?

Really, even with 3 clunker films and an iffy tv attempt, If you look at it as a damn decent trilogy and 2 cool shows, there's enough quality Superman media to last for quite awhile. Why do modern filmmakers always think they need to do it better? Bryan Singer blew his wad for Superman Returns (it is a given he should have never left The Last Stand) and Zak Snyder now dropping the 300 prequel. Sometimes I just why a franchise can't be left well enough alone? I still take Superman I and II over a lot of this modern drivel.

Eh, not trying to sound bitchy. Just getting genuinely frustrated at all these new attempts and still at the end of the day thinking the original was best, wasn't broke, and shouldn't have been fixed, you know?

 

[Skywalker]

Superman: The Movie may be the best of the movies that have already been made, but that doesn't mean it will always be the best. Just because something came first, that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

 

[Broccoli]

Really, even with 3 clunker films and an iffy tv attempt,

What?! How can you realistically say that? I am assuming the "three clunker films" is in reference to Supeman I-III (as suggested earlier in your post). Superman: The Movie and Superman II have been generally highly regarded both with critics and film goers, and they continue to be so today. Superman III was, admittingly, a let down both critically and financially. However, I wouldn't call the series to that point "clunker" by any means.

Same with TV. Superman has been very successful on television. George Reeves's series, The Adventures of Superman was on television screens for seven years and was only stopped due to Reeves's death. Both Superboy and Lois and Clark were on for four years. Not a long run, but a respectable one. Smallville was on for ten years and currently ranks as the longest-running superhero-related show on TV. All this doesn't take into account the various animated series that have appeared over the years. I wouldn't call that an "iffy attempt". I'd call that a continuously successful attempt.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Snyder "got" Watchmen pretty well. Moore's intent with the story is not such a simple thing and doesn't boil down to one inarguable dominating theme, which is about the only thing that elevates it.

 

[KB24]

^ The three clunker films in my mind are Quest for Peace, Supergirl, and Superman Returns. I think I to III are the best. I said that. Dude, Broccoli, did you read my post fully? The iffy tv attempt I said was Superboy.


"TPTB should have really just left it alone after the first 3. And even 3 was a lot like that sub par Return of the Jedi feeling. Much as I love Supergirl in its badness, they were milking this franchise with that and Quest for Peace so badly! Lois and Clark and Smallville ran their course just fine as well. My, do you remember that brief Superboy tv show? Really, even with 3 clunker films and an iffy tv attempt, If you look at it as a damn decent trilogy and 2 cool shows, there's enough quality Superman media to last for quite awhile."

You know what they say about assume :P

And I don't consider the first film the best not because it came first, but because thus far it still is the best. They've been trying to top it for 35 years and haven't succeeded. At some point should they just stop bothering with all the trouble and be content with what they have?

Sigh, this is why I don't always bother to post. One of two things will happen with this movie. It will bomb like Superman Returns or top the original. Anything in between will only be considered an excuse to make another one.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I personally will be content with being entertained. It's probably the one quality in the movie I look for it, and am willing to overlook any flaws. I'm getting more and more eager about seeing Henry in the costume as well. I'm sure that will be the next thing everyone will critique and bitch about. Heh. This thread will implode when it does surface I'm sure.

 

[Broccoli]

^ The three clunker films in my mind are Quest for Peace, Supergirl, and Superman Returns. I think I to III are the best. I said that. Dude, Broccoli, did you read my post fully? The iffy tv attempt I said was Superboy.


"TPTB should have really just left it alone after the first 3. And even 3 was a lot like that sub par Return of the Jedi feeling. Much as I love Supergirl in its badness, they were milking this franchise with that and Quest for Peace so badly! Lois and Clark and Smallville ran their course just fine as well. My, do you remember that brief Superboy tv show? Really, even with 3 clunker films and an iffy tv attempt, If you look at it as a damn decent trilogy and 2 cool shows, there's enough quality Superman media to last for quite awhile."

You know what they say about assume :P

And I don't consider the first film the best not because it came first, but because thus far it still is the best. They've been trying to top it for 35 years and haven't succeeded. At some point should they just stop bothering with all the trouble and be content with what they have?

Sigh, this is why I don't always bother to post. One of two things will happen with this movie. It will bomb like Superman Returns or top the original. Anything in between will only be considered an excuse to make another one.

Sorry, KB. The way you worded your post had me interpret it differently from your intent.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Did Superman Returns bomb or did it underperform? IIRC, it made as much as Batman Begins, but cost more to make.

 

[Broccoli]

Did Superman Returns bomb or did it underperform? IIRC, it made as much as Batman Begins, but cost more to make.

It under-preformed. It actually had a higher B.O. than Batman Begins, but it was an expensive movie to begin with and had the costs of the aborted Superman films tacked onto its budget.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Agreed. It under performed. It's budget was over two hundred million dollars to begin with and I believe absorbed the previous attempts at restarting the franchise. I could be wrong about that.

 

[Broccoli]

^ Agreed. It under performed. It's budget was over two hundred million dollars to begin with and I believe absorbed the previous attempts at restarting the franchise. I could be wrong about that.

The budget reports have ranged from 185-209 million. I don't know for sure if that takes into account the abortive projects or if those costs were added onto that. Either way, it was an expensive movie and didn't quite make as much as WB was hoping.

But, a bomb, it was not.

 

[KB24]

Whew! I thought I was loosing it, Broccoli

Yeah How much money did Superman Returns make and it wasn't good enough? I just worry they are going to dole out crap for the bucks rather than make something with some spirit. Agreed that at least Cavill has more onscreen weight than, uh, that Brandon Roof or somebody who was in Returns. Why can't a franchise ever just been finished? We are so extreme, some things just go on and on and need to be put down and so many other things are snatched away at the spark. Sad.

ETA: To the studio wanting the big bucks, does underperformed = bomb? The Box Office is like College Football, never a clear winner and so much damn criteria to consider!

 

[Broccoli]

Superman Returns approximately doubled its budget. In Hollywood, that is usually a coin flip on whether or not a sequel will happen. If SR had stronger reviews (which were not bad - it got a 76% over at RT) and movie goers responded better towards it, I predict we would have seen a Superman Returns II (with a smaller budget).

 

[Admiral_Young]

It still astonishes me the divisive nature of "Superman Returns". For all of it's flaws I think Singer told and executed the film he wanted to do (and is classy for admitting that it ultimately had flaws despite the fact he didn't need to do that). People were simply expecting a totally different movie from him and when they didn't get it...they bitched about it and continue to do so to this day and probably will until they get the type of Superman movie "they" want to see.

 

[Samurai8472]

It was purposely a "chick flick" as Singer has stated many times


http://financial.businessinsider.com/siliconalleymedia.clusterstock/news/read?GUID=121018

Bryan Singer tells Senior Writer Sean Smith that the movie is his "first chick flick. There's plenty of stuff for the boys, but in the past I've made movies that boys have to drag their girlfriends to," Singer tells Newsweek in an interview in the July 3-July 10 issue (on newsstands Monday, June 26). "This one shows my friends that I have a romantic side. They have accused me of having affairs with my movies, to the point where [they take the place of] human romance."

It was a failed experiment. If part 2 had been made it would probably feature more action and fanboys would compare it to X2 or Superman 2

 

[KB24]

I know what you mean Admiral. For what it is Superman Returns isn't bad, it is just, I don't know, not a Superman movie, you know? Sort of like Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Yeah, perhaps it isn't that bad there, but why did they go there to begin with?

Eh. What's this one supposed to be about anyway? Did I miss that? Why don't they just do Funeral for a Friend and have the four rival Supermen. Whoever is the popular gets the franchise.

Remember how the latest Crowe Robin Hood was originally a script called Nottingham told from the misunderstood Sheriff's point of view? Why not have a Lex Luthor movie? Something a little different. How many times can they keep telling the same Superman stuff?

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

I feel like they've only scratched the surface as far as movie versions of Superman go.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ I would agree with that sentiment to some degree. This is another reason why I'm excited to see what Snyder can do with the character and his mythos. Fans too I think aren't giving enough credit to Nolan and Goyer who have concentrated on the script. Everything I've read so far suggests that Zach has had nothing to do with any of the rewrites. I'm sure he's consulted but he hasn't been hands on to my understanding.