• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

I just met Zack Snyder!

339817_204262136305700_100001657463185_572793_766333425_o.jpg
 
Zack looking an awfully like Mark Ruffalo these days. Thats awesome though JA! Too bad you couldn't get that close to Nolan.
 
The Kevin Smith script unfortunately was flawed due to Jon Peters constant inane suggestions. Kevin basically had to alter the Superman story he really wanted to tell.

Maybe one day we will get an established Superman story. The first X-Men movie wasn't an origin movie so there are examples. It's also a matter of what kind of story the studio wants told. I'm guessing the starting from scratch mentality has to do with the critical back lash "Superman Returns" got.
I remember Smith complaining about Peters incessantly demanding a giant spider, it was funny and the guy comes off as really dumb, but I always sort of took that with a grain of salt.

I mean, iirc, the villain was Brainiac, and there's no law that says Brainiac has to look like a certain thing. (Except the color magenta should be involved.)

ObiWanShinobi said:
Zack looking an awfully like Mark Ruffalo these days. Thats awesome though JA! Too bad you couldn't get that close to Nolan.

It's weird to finally see a photo of him, because--I realize now--that for years I've been picturing Zack Snyder as Zack Morris.
 
I've seen him in the past and he always reminded me of Seth Meyers from SNL Weekend Update, but that picture he look like Mark Ruffalo. I think it's the 5 O'clock shadow.
 
I've seen him in the past and he always reminded me of Seth Meyers from SNL Weekend Update, but that picture he look like Mark Ruffalo. I think it's the 5 O'clock shadow.
Yea, on the Commentary opening for Dawn of the Dead, he looks quite a bit like Seth Meyers. He definitely looks older now
 
I doubt the studio decided on this being a reboot simply because of the performance of SR. Most likely Nolan simply came to them with his story idea, and they decided they'd be stupid to say no to him.

How did SR suck? I'm probably one of few who actually like it. :lol: I remember being impressed with it in the cinema when I saw it, but in fairness it doesn't hold a candle to both Superman I and II.
 
How did SR suck? I'm probably one of few who actually like it. :lol: I remember being impressed with it in the cinema when I saw it, but in fairness it doesn't hold a candle to both Superman I and II.

I really like it too (maybe not as much as when I first saw it, but still)

But there's no denying that it didn't exactly set the world on fire.
 
Jeff Robinov, who is now the President and COO of Warner Bros., said the reason they were rebooting is because they felt like Superman Returns under-performed. Here's the exact quote:

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes — known as “Batman vs. Superman” — after the $215 million “Superman Returns,” which had disappointing box-office returns, didn’t please executives. “‘Superman Returns’ didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” says Mr. Robinov. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned.” “Had ‘Superman Returns’ worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009,” he adds. “But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all.”

Here's the rest of the article. So quite literally Robinov and studio executives felt underwhelmed by the performance of Superman Returns and thought a reboot was the better option. This was before Nolan and Goyer pitched their idea for what eventually became Man of Steel.
 
When Superman switches to Clark, he should wear a red Speedo on his face.

Heck, it'd explain why no one recognizes him.
 
Actually Robinov didn't say anything much about SR's financial performance - simply that it didn't "work as a film" and "didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned."

And oddly enough, despite the actual measurable under-performance of Green Lantern they're entertaining a sequel to it. These folks obviously have a strategic view of some kind as to how these properties should be developed, even if the way to do it isn't clear to them at all times.
 
The article mentions the disappointing box office returns and Alan Horn has gone on record, back when he was running Warner Bros. (which was during the time the film was released) that Warner Bros. as a whole was disappointed at the box office figures.

Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations. "I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Clearly there's no disputing that Warner Bros. was not satisfied with the box office returns of Superman Returns and it was a big factor in their decision to eventually reboot the franchise. Also, in regards to a Green Lantern sequel, that article also mentions that Horn and WB was at one point entertaining the notion of a sequel to Superman Returns, but we saw what happened there. Nothing is for certain in this industry. And this is coming from someone who adored Superman Returns and was pleasantly entertained by Green Lantern. Click here for the original article.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top