Reply With Quote
I doubt that will happen. I just don't see them making an R-rated Superman.
It's a great choice and I welcome him donning the director's cape and actually doing something interesting with Superman.
What I'm more intrigued by is that Nolan is producing with a script by his bro and David Goyer. If you don't know....they wrote Dark Knight and Batman Begins.
I doubt that will happen. I just don't see them making an R-rated Superman.
Yeah you're likely right about that.
When is Wonder Woman coming out?
if this is true, it's hilarious. Aaronovsky passed over because he likes to get things right and they need production to start in 2011 to avoid lawsuits. Snyder will direct anything:
http://io9.com/5657139/darren-aronof...scripts-a-mess
Let me ask, do yall really not like 300, or is it that considering the entire body of work of this director, you don't like him because he uses the same tricks over and over again. (as in 300 was great, but then when you saw Watchmen it pissed you off that it was the exact same format with different words)
I didn't really care for 300, it was boring. It would have been better animated. I thought Spartacus: Blood and Sand was way better, though equally cheesy.
I saw 300 first and didn't like it. When I saw Watchmen, I recognized the similar style but thought it was much more effective for that film.
I liked 300. I've actually liked several of Snyder's films, and am looking forward to Sucker Punch.
I'm convinced the writing will continue to be the problem in making a good Superman film, though. No matter the director they choose, writers need to stop trying to give us a young Superman and an origin story. Yawn. We've had umpteen seasons of "Smallville" to satisfy whatever audience there is for that. And, seriously, is there anyone alive on this planet who doesn't know the Superman origin story? At least well enough to give a general synopsis? No. Make him older, go dark, cast Jon Hamm as Supes. Otherwise, be prepared for cheesy flop-ville.
Jokes and cheesy owls aside, Nolan and Snyder are really the only things about this reboot that even remotely interest me.
I've seen him brought up before, but I agree Jon Hamm would be a perfect Superman. He has the comedic chops to pull off Clark Kent and the uber-masculinity needed for Superman.
theres also going to be a spiderman reboot, fkn lame...
why is marvel allowing reboots when the original were a success, we dont need reboots or just go straight to dvd....
Darker is almost always better for superhero films.
I don't know if I want to see a Superman with a drinking problem or a gratuitous violent streak.
I guess it makes sense for him to have some daddy issues... But the historical appeal of Superman has always been that he's such a freaking good guy. If it needs to be darker, perhaps the world around him should be darker - sort of a Gotham setting. Maybe Lois could be a little more of an Angelina Jolie type.
I'm thinking "Last Temptation of Superman" stuff. He has his demons, but he's not an asshole or a sympathetic bad guy, and he's not ultimately self-destructive.
I still get a bad feeling when every studio wants to reboot every franchise "darker" just because of batman begins and dark knight.
Tobey Maguire isn't getting any younger so they're trying to inject new blood into the series. Sam Raimi had his run and I wouldn't mind seeing another take on Spider-man. I just hope they're not going to follow the Smallville teenybopper formula for these movies.
Doubt it. They tried it with Superman Returns and it didn't work.
A couple more thoughts after the initial reaction:
My concern with Snyder is that I thought he was TOO deferential to the source material in Watchmen - one of the darkest comic adaptations yet. The movie didn't have any energy to me at all - it didn't draw me into the story. I felt like I was watching a do entary or a comic page by page or frame by frame, not a movie whose energy and story should flow from scene to scene. (And I think that of the few changes that were made, one of the main ones fails completely: transforming Viedt, supposedly the smartest person in the world that in the comic was portrayed as a well managed public image concealing a danger simmering below the surface, into an effete glam-rockesque enigma whose personality/look doesn't match up with his motivations or skills.)
Which is why I'm really hoping Suckerpunch is damn great. I've heard great things about the action and visual style of his animated film Legends of the Guardians. That would be Snyders last two films leading up to Superman that are dynamic stories.
The problem with Superman Returns wasn't that it wasn't dark enough. It wasn't interesting enough. A Lex Luthor retread story? Really? And really that's my same criticism with Snyder's Watchmen adaptation. I read Moore's story and I was completely absorbed by it. I watched the adaptation and was bored. In a lot of ways, Watchmen and Superman Returns were the same movie to me: A visually striking movie I wanted to like but upon watching never got me involved in the story and ultimately left me wanting... something else. More character / motivation development? Better pacing? Better energy? Something was off.
I really don't care how dark Superman is. Just make it interesting, and be true to the essence of the character. I don't care if you put an "S" on his chest or give him a red cape. But he needs to have a code he struggles with and ultimately sticks with like Nolan gave Batman. Nolan realized that in order for the story to work it has to be grounded in reality, no matter how fantastic some parts of the story are. For Superman, it think that means we need to see the internal struggle trying to reconcile being raised as a "normal" American kid with normal parents and having God-like abilities. To me that is the magic of the first two Christopher Reeve movies - he managed to make Superman interesting; the audience could identify with the character. Singer paid homage to the wrong part of Donner's movies. He focused on the same Lex Luthor plot line and pretty visuals. Instead he should have focused on Clark/Superman's human journey.
Superman is by nature not as dark a character as Batman, so to me the trick isn't just to make Superman darker. It's to make Clark/Superman an interesting character the audience will identify with.
as in a ot emo in spiderman 3 with the emo look?
seriously superman isnt interesting, the villains are lame
It's Superman brah. "Oh no! Not kryptonite!!! Must...reach...sun." Epic emotional conundrums right there for sure.
The action scenes in 300 were pretty epic. Snyder brings a unique visionary angle that I enjoy.
Stupid. You haven't read/seen much Superman. Luthor is overdone in movies, but he's far from lame. Darksied, Bizzaro, Brainiac, Doomsday, Zod...
Just to be clear, when I suggested going dark it wasn't because I necessarily want to see a belligerent Superman with track marks. I just meant as opposed to teenybops and candy colors.
Needs some Darkseid. Also, yes, Zod.
That's one thing that I liked about Spider-man 2 (the only Spider-man movie Raimi made that I really liked). He made Peter Parker the kind of everyman he was supposed to be and showed the consequences of him being a superhero...can't hold on to jobs, can't pay the bills, living in a ty apartment, not being able to keep up with school, etc. Anyone that's had to work their way through college and been through a ty job economy knows that kind of thing can wear on you when it starts piling on.
Too bad we never got to see the consequences of mixing blondes, bridges, and Norman Osborn.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
