|
Post by EnriqueH on Feb 4, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 4, 2014 22:08:38 GMT -5
Interesting.... and confusing article.
I thought he was going with Kryptonians and Brainiac for the sequel.
Truly sad to hear that Valkyrie really did do the sequel in. *sigh*
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 5, 2014 1:35:00 GMT -5
hate reading these articles would have killed for a sr sequel
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 5, 2014 11:12:44 GMT -5
hate reading these articles would have killed for a sr sequel Me too. On the other hand- I keep thinking that at least we got ONE Singer Superman that tried to transition Donner's Superman to today. (And got the never released SII Donner footage released indirectly) And- X-men: First Class (which I think is a far better origin than what they came up with retroactively in comics) and possibly two more (plus hopefully more) X-men films directed by Singer again. While I mourn the loss of SR 2/Singer's MOS--- I wonder if we never would have gotten Singer back with X-men... On the flip side- I'm curious that, if we didn't get Snyder/Goyer for MOS- (or if MOS bombed at the box office) - what/who was 'next in line' to carry the Superman franchise. Ratner? Back to Abrams?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Feb 5, 2014 15:11:07 GMT -5
If SR had been made 5 years after S2, and starred Reeve and Kidder, would it have been good? Or still crap?
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 5, 2014 15:52:25 GMT -5
sure would have been interesting
|
|
|
Post by donvito70s on Feb 5, 2014 17:22:04 GMT -5
After seeing his direction on his two X-Men films, Superman Returns, and Valkyrie, I have no interest in Singer's take on Superman Returns sequel. Especially with regards to Superman Returns he seems to lack fundamental understanding of Superman's character.
For decades (pre & post Donner), I have always known Superman as more of a brawler, a man of action whether stopping a common thief, thwarting the ambition of a mad scientist/morally bankrupted businessman or butting head with monsters of either brutal or megalomaniac variety like Doomsday or Zod. Donner did a wonderful job and would have continued the tradition of Superman tackling an ever escalating, city destroying villains in the sequel. Singer did no such thing and he made Superman Returns on my first viewing slightly enjoyable but ultimately depressing affair. His comment about movie made for a certain kind of audience pointed to me his lack of understanding of the primary requirement of a comic book film: full on entertainment & adventure, as the first Avenger demonstrated. We don't want a boring art-house stuffs for the Cannes crowd.
Snyder still has a long way to go, he needs to make a refined Superman. In fact, Snyder's filmography is very short and he's yet to make one really good original movie – maybe his vanity project Sucker Punch got him in the gut and he's afraid to explore! He is at least very good at managing big budget film, unlike Singer who wasted millions on an unnecessary return to Krypton opening scene.
I enjoyed MOS more for what it represented – an abundance of new ideas being put on screen especially in the light of uninspired remakes galore currently going on. I saw one such remake – Carrie and I couldn't believe the absence of brain cells in the people who make this crap. I heard that the Robcop remake had no redeeming quality and lacked the satirical wit of Verhoeven's original. Speaking about Verhoeven, here is a director who made very good action movie suffused with biting satire. His Starship Trooper while bearing no resemblance to Heinlein's book, managed to pack a lot of satirical references that most critics seem to have missed, mostly about right-wing militarism. Truthfully I enjoyed Verhoeven's 80s films more than any 2010s' remakes. I would not mind him making a Superman film at all.
So no, Singer would probably have made a crap Superman Returns sequel, most likely involving the son now grown up and Cyclop lost in DC verse on the screen. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Feb 5, 2014 19:19:27 GMT -5
I for one loved X1 and X2, but I'm simply AMAZED that SR didn't turn out better since Singer was clearly enthused about the project from the beginning. It seemed to be a labor of love, yet the project misfired. Usually when someone is as passionate about the material as Singer was, it's good for the movie. So it's a mystery to me how it all kinda fell flat.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 5, 2014 19:24:59 GMT -5
well there was the drug rumors surrounding singer
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Feb 5, 2014 19:41:24 GMT -5
What drug rumors?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 6, 2014 0:21:03 GMT -5
After seeing his direction on his two X-Men films, Superman Returns, and Valkyrie, I have no interest in Singer's take on Superman Returns sequel. Especially with regards to Superman Returns he seems to lack fundamental understanding of Superman's character. For decades (pre & post Donner), I have always known Superman as more of a brawler, a man of action whether stopping a common thief, thwarting the ambition of a mad scientist/morally bankrupted businessman or butting head with monsters of either brutal or megalomaniac variety like Doomsday or Zod. Donner did a wonderful job and would have continued the tradition of Superman tackling an ever escalating, city destroying villains in the sequel. Singer did no such thing and he made Superman Returns on my first viewing slightly enjoyable but ultimately depressing affair. His comment about movie made for a certain kind of audience pointed to me his lack of understanding of the primary requirement of a comic book film: full on entertainment & adventure, as the first Avenger demonstrated. We don't want a boring art-house stuffs for the Cannes crowd. Snyder still has a long way to go, he needs to make a refined Superman. In fact, Snyder's filmography is very short and he's yet to make one really good original movie – maybe his vanity project Sucker Punch got him in the gut and he's afraid to explore! He is at least very good at managing big budget film, unlike Singer who wasted millions on an unnecessary return to Krypton opening scene. I enjoyed MOS more for what it represented – an abundance of new ideas being put on screen especially in the light of uninspired remakes galore currently going on. I saw one such remake – Carrie and I couldn't believe the absence of brain cells in the people who make this crap. I heard that the Robcop remake had no redeeming quality and lacked the satirical wit of Verhoeven's original. Speaking about Verhoeven, here is a director who made very good action movie suffused with biting satire. His Starship Trooper while bearing no resemblance to Heinlein's book, managed to pack a lot of satirical references that most critics seem to have missed, mostly about right-wing militarism. Truthfully I enjoyed Verhoeven's 80s films more than any 2010s' remakes. I would not mind him making a Superman film at all. So no, Singer would probably have made a crap Superman Returns sequel, most likely involving the son now grown up and Cyclop lost in DC verse on the screen. LOL. Well.... fair enough, I just had a different experience with both SR and MOS. In brief: Superman Returns was more of a 'Masterpiece Theatre'/character piece, and - while I would have loved more superhero action - I was thrilled that I felt Singer made a dark introspective character study of Donner's Superman. Right or wrong, it was a passion piece for Singer (after all, it cost him X3)- and I was always wondering how a filmmaker could give more significant character development for Superman- who basically can't change, and I thought Singer and company did a gutsy thing by making him a father.... but more importantly, it executed it in a moving way to me, when I thought the drama could have easily fallen on its face. For MOS: I didn't mind some of the new ideas- even though I thought many of the choices were more unnecessarily convoluted- I didn't mind it, and the first hour felt very fresh, although the drama to me DID fall on its face in a few too many spots for me. Verhoeven is a wonderful crazy director, whose work I miss on screen. He would be able to direct a fantastic adaptation of Miller's "Dark Knight Returns"- satire and all, but it's hard for me to envision Verhoeven directing a 'straight' Superman film without a degree of sarcasm to it. (Though part of me would still love to see that wild ride). Singer's Valkyrie I thought was as good as it possibly could be- but it's one of those stories I felt better suited (and stronger) as a documentary than as a feature. In any case- I'd still have loved to have seen Singer's X3 and SR 2 in comic book form; pity he doesn't have any interest in it.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Feb 6, 2014 1:44:48 GMT -5
Did SR need a dragonfly?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 6, 2014 3:10:38 GMT -5
SR2 was always going to be Man of Steel. In fact, the only constant from about 2008 until 2013 was that the next Superman movie was going to be called Man of Steel. After The Dark Knight, it was a forgone conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 6, 2014 11:06:11 GMT -5
It's a pity that the constant (to me) wasn't that Singer was going to do the following Superman film, reboot or not.
Still.... jumping back to the article- I am a bit shocked that (if the article is accurate)- WB was contractually OBLIGATED to follow-through on the sequel with Singer, presumably because it hit certain dollar amounts (?).
In any case- as mentioned, I'm comforted by the fact that at least Singer's back with X-men because of this, and that- at least Singer was able to do ONE Superman film & make (indirectly) the RDC footage available through it.
On the flip side, it's a pity that with all the talent out there- that Snyder gets to be the one pretty much launching the JLA. Oh well... as long as he buys a tripod for the next picture, at least it'll be a good looking film....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 8, 2014 16:41:15 GMT -5
After seeing his direction on his two X-Men films, Superman Returns, and Valkyrie, I have no interest in Singer's take on Superman Returns sequel. Especially with regards to Superman Returns he seems to lack fundamental understanding of Superman's character. It's a shame MOS followed that trend at a magnified level.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 8, 2014 18:15:40 GMT -5
After seeing his direction on his two X-Men films, Superman Returns, and Valkyrie, I have no interest in Singer's take on Superman Returns sequel. Especially with regards to Superman Returns he seems to lack fundamental understanding of Superman's character. It's a shame MOS followed that trend at a magnified level. It would have been interesting to have seen a 'sitdown' with Donner, Singer, Nolan, Goyer, and Snyder about their takes on what they felt/feel is their own understanding of who Superman is- and isn't- but, I could see how there would be a 'code' between directors that wouldn't allow one another to criticize each other's work.... at least publicly. Ah well. Moot point. If Singer stays with X-men for the long haul (though I'm still curious if his Battlestar Galactica feature ever happens-- what the heck are they waiting for? Every time I think it's dead, Singer mentions that it's being prepped and/or waiting for the studio, it seems), I guess I'm satisfied. I am curious how long DC/WB will allow Cavill to play Superman before they reboot from scratch all over again, too....
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Feb 8, 2014 19:51:31 GMT -5
Doubt WB will let Cavill star as Superman for as long as the nine years that Reeve did over four films.
I mean a Superman actor at age 30 is fine. But closing in on age 40, it's just not gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 8, 2014 23:29:25 GMT -5
Doubt WB will let Cavill star as Superman for as long as the nine years that Reeve did over four films. I mean a Superman actor at age 30 is fine. But closing in on age 40, it's just not gonna happen. That's a good point. It's going to be weird if they have to already limit how many films that Cavill will be in a Superman film (but then again, I'm still scratching my head as to how they could let Bale slip away from Batman)- I think I've just been too spoiled by seeing how many movies CAN be made (if planned well or fast enough) with the same cast with the original Star Trek movies- Whether one loves or hates the Marvel movies, no one can't say that Marvel sits on their hands with comic book properties like WB seems to- also, they don't waste any time with the multi-picture contracts with their talent- which is a great thing... And with 20th Century (even with my gripes with some of how some of their movies turn out)- Hugh Jackman will have played Wolverine for the 7th time with the new X-men movie.... So- yeah, I hear you & it'll be interesting to see how the Cavill/Superman thing plays out at WB over the years.... (Maybe Cavill will be replaced by Matt Damon later on)
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Feb 8, 2014 23:32:38 GMT -5
Hindsight is 20/20, and looking back, I can't believe the Star Trek movie franchise was basically a reunion of middle-aged/senior citizen actors from 1 through 10. A 20-year old movie franchise starring nothing but old fogies!
It wasn't until the JJ Abrams reboot that the cast got young.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 9, 2014 14:31:42 GMT -5
That would never be done now unless the show was a huge long running hit. If TOS went off the air now at best they'd try to develop a reboot with younger actors
With the way Hollywood is now unless the films are hugely successful it's hard to imagine Cavill being in for the long haul of a DC film universe for the next fifteen years. Even another reboot would stand a chance. Or recasting. It could go either way. The industry is just so youth driven. Reboot just seems to be an accepted practice by the studios and the fans. Isn't the Mummy being rebooted again? See the Spidey trilogy too. Even thought the last one made a ton of money but the potential of a reboot was too enticing. DC film universe from the start change the playing field though so it could go either way depending on how successful these movies are.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Feb 9, 2014 15:18:04 GMT -5
Totally not trying to be a smartass hater, just the honest truth:
I don't see or hear ANY buzz about Henry Cavill in the media. Nobody seems to give a poop about him or his career. I don't see him on magazine covers, I don't see or hear people touting his performance as Superman, I don't hear any buzz about any of his upcoming projects.
Just crickets.
When Casino Royale came out, not only was pop culture on fire with buzz about his performance, but there were magazine articles for months afterwards, "top 10 hottest/talented/sexy" lists for months and months, some buzz about his upcoming films.
I'm not seeing or hearing any of that with Cavill.
So you're probably right. It's not a long haul type thing.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 9, 2014 22:51:50 GMT -5
HAHA you know what i remember when they announced craig as bond i saw it on the news they had him come in on some boat in a harbor somewhere maybe London ?
i remember a big chunk of press weren't happy with the casting cause he had blonde hair or some poop
i had never ever been interested in watching a bond film before
around 2 years passed i found myself at fox studios Sydney with a few hours to kill before going to the football. and casino royale was playing would have been towards the end of it's run would of been around mid January
so glad i did one of the best films i have ever seen just blew me out of my seat and this was my first time watching a bond film
just a little story there for you enrique
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 10, 2014 1:06:37 GMT -5
HAHA you know what i remember when they announced craig as bond i saw it on the news they had him come in on some boat in a harbor somewhere maybe London ? i remember a big chunk of press weren't happy with the casting cause he had blonde hair or some poop i had never ever been interested in watching a bond film before around 2 years passed i found myself at fox studios Sydney with a few hours to kill before going to the football. and casino royale was playing would have been towards the end of it's run would of been around mid January so glad i did one of the best films i have ever seen just blew me out of my seat and this was my first time watching a bond film just a little story there for you enrique Difference is CR won people over in a way MOS never did and Craig proved the haters wrong by turning in a great performance. He's legit near the top of Bond actors in a way Cavill just isn't for Superman. Craig made it his. Enrique's right in that AFTER the movie came out there was more positive talk about Craig.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 10, 2014 1:11:39 GMT -5
Totally not trying to be a smartass hater, just the honest truth: I don't see or hear ANY buzz about Henry Cavill in the media. Nobody seems to give a poop about him or his career. I don't see him on magazine covers, I don't see or hear people touting his performance as Superman, I don't hear any buzz about any of his upcoming projects. Just crickets. When Casino Royale came out, not only was pop culture on fire with buzz about his performance, but there were magazine articles for months afterwards, "top 10 hottest/talented/sexy" lists for months and months, some buzz about his upcoming films. I'm not seeing or hearing any of that with Cavill. So you're probably right. It's not a long haul type thing. MOS came, made somewhat of a splash, and went. It didn't exactly light the world on fire and was just another big comic book movie. I think that's one reason Cavill isn't that high profile after the movie opened. We'll find out where he stands when stuff like Man From UNCLE opens.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 10, 2014 1:17:33 GMT -5
Totally not trying to be a smartass hater, just the honest truth: I don't see or hear ANY buzz about Henry Cavill in the media. Nobody seems to give a poop about him or his career. I don't see him on magazine covers, I don't see or hear people touting his performance as Superman, I don't hear any buzz about any of his upcoming projects. Just crickets. When Casino Royale came out, not only was pop culture on fire with buzz about his performance, but there were magazine articles for months afterwards, "top 10 hottest/talented/sexy" lists for months and months, some buzz about his upcoming films. I'm not seeing or hearing any of that with Cavill. So you're probably right. It's not a long haul type thing. In fairness to Cavill, (who I liked suprisingly as Supes), I think with the reboot so soon after, (just like with the Spiderman series)now Superman is considered as replaceable as Batman was during the Schumacher days..... Ironically, with Bond, who was definitely considered a character where the actor was disposable after Connery was swapped out for the longest time- I think there's a feeling that now with Bond more as a character piece, that Craig is not as replaceable so quickly... (Could be totally wrong, but that's my feeling for how it seems right now anyways...)
|
|