|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 15, 2009 10:07:46 GMT -5
I dunno. I disagree a little bit. I think if the director puts the material before his style, that would fit Superman. I'd be willing to jump on an auteur wagon if say, maybe, Robert Rodriguez would do it, because of his range, and willingness to tell a story within an action romp. And has been successful with wider range audiences with the Spy Kids movies and his Zorro films. If someone like him took the metteur en scene approach, I can get behind that. Ugh, Robert Rodriguez? Really? I think his Spy Kids movies are horrible. And Zorro is campy as heck. I think he is a B movies type of director. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 10:53:58 GMT -5
I love Rodriguez. He's a little too...accessible? I dunno if that makes sense, but he seems like he makes his movies more out of fun than to tell a story. Although I do think his Mariachi flicks have the most personality and soul and heart out of all his flicks.
But I'd definitely take a Rodriguez Superman flick. He could do it right. But he never will, he said so himself, he wouldn't want to. Feh.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 15, 2009 11:57:45 GMT -5
Ok, my bad. Apologies. I did misinterpet what you said-
Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 12:22:29 GMT -5
Would one say Ron Howard has a distinctive style?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 15, 2009 13:05:24 GMT -5
Hmm... I think Howard does have a style, but Howard's style isn't as flashy or showy as other directors. He consistently tells a story that makes sense and has solid performances, though those stories aren't always the most compelling. Back to Donner- I just recently re-watched Donner's films "The Omen" and "Inside Moves"- it's definitely a lot different than his "Timeline" and "16 Blocks" films. In style and creative choices, the latter two seemed to embrace a grittier look and feel- whereas older films like "Inside Moves" and "Ladyhawke" (and even "Lethal Weapon 1 and 2") seem more stylish and romanticized. More fun, imo, to be honest. The guy seems like a great guy, but I miss the old sentimental, less gritty Donner films. They seemed a bit more fun. About Rodriguez: Most of his films are a lot of fun- I have a hard time with his Spy Kids' stuff...but I would have loved to have seen what he would have done if he had directed Zorro. Superman, though? After reading an interview with him, it just didn't seem like it was something he'd be into at all and seemed like he'd be forcing himself to get into it.... It'd be like putting Ang Lee on a comic book movie.  |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Apr 15, 2009 13:49:33 GMT -5
I think someone like Ron Howard is a director that Gandy was alluding to in terms of someone lacking personal style. Howard doesn't have a distinctive style at all, to be honest. The reason I know Howard made certain films is because those films are popular and known...Howard has that great advantage, which is why he has a great career.
But if he doesn't pick the right story, then the film will may not be so good. Unlike someone like Spielberg, Kubrick, Cameron, Hitchcock...you give them any story and you know they did it, whether it's good or bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Apr 15, 2009 23:37:35 GMT -5
Giving Apollo 13 quality scripts to him and not Grinch quality you mean? ;D
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Apr 16, 2009 7:04:29 GMT -5
Hm, David Lean did have a distinctive style. It may not have screamed at you, but watching a couple of his films, I could tell those were his films. But based on your criteria, Brett Ratner would've been an okay choice for Superman too.  Having watched all but two of his features I don't see a distinctive style that ties them together. The great thing about Lean was that he applied different rules to each of his film, and they were very subtle. In Lawrence of Arabia the characters progress from left to right until the last sequence where Lawrence retreats right to left, returning to England. Brett Ratner is a cinematic director, Red Dragon looks like a billion dollars. He might be a good choice. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 16, 2009 9:35:13 GMT -5
Cinematic director?
When Avi Arad tried to defend Ratner as a choice for Xmen, he also brought up Red Dragon--- but I would say rent/buy "Manhunter"- which is exactly the same story, but done a million times better- directed by Michael Mann....and see if you still feel the same way.
Red Dragon told a good enough story- but as far as doing a comic book movie.... ehhh.... Ratner's name isn't the worst choice, but...
Brett Ratner also did Xmen 3, which was anything but subtle. While I argue that Xmen 3 has some good parts, the choices made took a lot of subtleties that Singer put in the first two films and simplified them to such a degree in X3 that it was painful.
Could be worse, though, that I'd agree on.
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Apr 16, 2009 9:47:49 GMT -5
Manhunter is brilliant because it takes the strength of the book and goes in a different direction, it's much better than Red Dragon which is fatty but looks just stunning. If he was coupled with a great writer and no studio interference, who knows?
I haven't seen X-Men 3. I'm not a fan of the X-Men movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 16, 2009 10:36:19 GMT -5
Hnh...
That's interesting..... since Singer put a lot of his same sensibilities into the Xfilms and Superman Returns, I can see more why you didn't care for his version of Superman, in your Supescinema review if you didn't care for the X films either.
(Not a criticism, but just a curiosity- I am/was such a biased giant fan of both Xfilms and SR, that I have a hard time trying to understand whenever anyone dislikes SR).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 11:34:29 GMT -5
Just because Fincher has made intense, dark gritty movies in the past doesn't mean a Superman movie from him would be similarly toned.
heck, Ben Button's nothing like anything he made before. And I'm sure the Zodiac is even pretty different, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 16, 2009 11:37:30 GMT -5
Hnh... That's interesting..... since Singer put a lot of his same sensibilities into the Xfilms and Superman Returns, I can see more why you didn't care for his version of Superman, in your Supescinema review if you didn't care for the X films either. (Not a criticism, but just a curiosity- I am/was such a biased giant fan of both Xfilms and SR, that I have a hard time trying to understand whenever anyone dislikes SR). Me too, me too. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Apr 16, 2009 11:57:50 GMT -5
Has anyone actually thought for a sec what if we could have a Superman movie set in the 40/50's? I think that would be pretty cool. Not sure if Fincher has the proper sentiment for Superman, but I wouldn't doubt his ability to adjust! Criminy, a Superman movie set in the post war 40's directed by Fincher? Ohhhh man, that'd be gorgeous. very interesting, while i dont think at all its going to happen , it would be COOL as heck if the studios did superhero films as a series of one-offs, not necassarily a series of sequels . just an interperatation of a character , isolated and explored , then closed as a premise and handed over to another director to do another adventure . i dont think it will happen because they are too formulaic , and they want to keep a consistant crew to maintain the cash-cow. it would take too much creative energy to supervise a series of films that were ( purposely ) loosely connected. when you look at the comics , most of the stories take place in the present , but there are classic stories set in specific era ( like watchmen being VERY 80's ) , and elseworlds putting batman in the 1800's , or superman in the future . i'd love to see a new version of superman every ten years or so, if a superman film is really good, let it do a sequel or trilogy and then close it up and PLAN on a new series with a whole new tone/approach/look . }it would be awesome to do a trilogy of : -dark knight returns -kingdom come -batman beyond }then a stand-alone justice society movie set in 1945( or maybe a major mini-series on hbo ) }then a superman in the 50's , with all the trappings of 50's sci-fi/fantasy flick. }then a few years later do a futuristic scifi superman set in the near future , say a 15 year glimpse in our speculative future with a whole different look . } a barry allen flash movie set in the late 60's , ( as a " sequel " to the justice society movie set in the 40's) with jay garrick being a mentor to barry allen } plastic man set in the 40's when he actually was created i am rambling now ( ;D ) but thats the approach to the genre I would take if i ran WB . |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 16, 2009 12:04:41 GMT -5
I agree...but, unfortunately, with the box-office disappointment of "Watchmen", I wouldn't be suprised to see the studios more gunshy about their investments, not less, these days- and go back to what they felt were 'safe' routes to go with. (Anything that can sell toys and be potential cash cow formulas)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Apr 16, 2009 12:19:01 GMT -5
i undertsand that a superhero movie needs to be handled with intelligance and sensitivity or it will fail in more ways than one , Donner understood he was dealing with far-fetched fantasy , but you can't use that as a creative cop-out , and it must have a degree of seriousness or else the viewer cant get invested in the story. STM works because its even and consistant, the sequels are not , the sequels lay it on thick with the wink-wink and just make up extraneous baloney for the sheer heck of it , while at the same time chris reeve is making superman feel real while the rest of the picture is going the other way.
donner could go from " OMEN " to " superman " because donner isnt about himself.
burton's batman is great , but burtons movies are about burtons world, his batman is about how batman can exist in tim burtons world , and not how burton can articulate batmans world. it worked for burton because batman could lend itself that way , but only just so .
ratner seems to have no affection for what he is doing, to him it seemed like a series of action montages , the emotional scenes were rushed and clunky , the script was little innane and there was no depth compared to X2 . i just dont see ratner doing a subsitive superman film , it will be music-video editing and lots of action but no depth. in X3 the sexual themes were dumbed-down to horny teen level when compared to X2 ( imo ) .
abrams simply did not understand superman at all , his treatment was 85% WRONG in its entire premise , only about 15% of it resembled superman .
maybe abrams has grown , maybe they'll hand him superman again if trek does well - but i dread that .
if we had a perfect world , salkind/donner would have done about 5-6 films and closed the series , then a zemeckis or spielberg could do a couple circa 1980's/1990's.
ron howard is a good craftsman , but needs a really good script . if he had a good treatment/script i would take a chance on him
jonathon frakes ( PLEASE GOD !!! ) would be a good choice imo. he can put it together well and all the money is on the screen. he managed to take a perfectly shit plot/script for insurrection and have it turn out intellegent and well-paced ( which is astounding as the story is dreadful ) and when he had a superb plot/script for first contact it was EXCELLENT.
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Apr 16, 2009 13:04:11 GMT -5
I agree...but, unfortunately, with the box-office disappointment of "Watchmen", I wouldn't be suprised to see the studios more gunshy about their investments, not less, these days- and go back to what they felt were 'safe' routes to go with. (Anything that can sell toys and be potential cash cow formulas) I agree 100%. The Watchmen box-office results will dictate the fate of other WB comic book based movies. Which is really a shame, because I felt the Watchmen was going back to the tradition of making a comic book movie without worrying about trying to be 'hip'. These days it's all about following each other. Everyone is looking to the Dark Knight as the ultimate comic book based movie, and how they can implement the successful features of that into their movie even if it doesn't fit - which WB has somewhat hinted doing for the next Supes.  |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Apr 17, 2009 2:56:00 GMT -5
Hnh... That's interesting..... since Singer put a lot of his same sensibilities into the Xfilms and Superman Returns, I can see more why you didn't care for his version of Superman, in your Supescinema review if you didn't care for the X films either. (Not a criticism, but just a curiosity- I am/was such a biased giant fan of both Xfilms and SR, that I have a hard time trying to understand whenever anyone dislikes SR). I much prefer his smaller films. I find X-Men uninteresting, I don't think they are much fun or look cinematic. I don't think the Watchmen BO numbers will affect future comic book films because it is quite unique and obviously took too much from the graphic novel instead of going its own way. Use the best bits of the book and make your film. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 17, 2009 10:26:11 GMT -5
The Xmen films I adored, because I had grown up with the comics- and realizing how much there was to adapt, and realizing how much Hollywood had NOT been faithful (or even respectful) to comic book source material at that point...
I was expecting the worst, because it would have been a lot to cram into a two hour film successfully, but Singer really pulled it off and that there continues to be sequels should be credited to Singer.
Having said that, though, my love of it may be more from the fact that I thought it was a great ADAPTATION. As an original movie on its own--- I'm way too biased, but Singer did a much better job of doing a standalone 'group' movie here than Snyder did with "wATCHMEN"- *
(*which I admire for its ambition in trying to be faithful to the material- but which ultimately suffered, I thought, not from that, but from not putting just enough reality in it (from two really really really badly cast actresses in key parts to slight but giantly important omissions from the graphic novel when it got to the heart of it- to giant key omissions from the major subplot of the movie that make all the small bits not really add up to anything important)
The first movie might not have been enough to hook a viewer in, I agree, with all of the characters introduced in the Xmen- but a lot of critics and viewers who weren't familiar with the universe felt that Xmen #1 was mainly an introduction, and really got into it and the characters with the second one. (*In other words, I can understand why those who didn't love the comic might not think the Xmen movie itself is anything great.)
Which makes (to me) the idea of Singer not being able to do a second Superman movie -and give it the same Xmen 1-2 treatment EXTREMELY tragic. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 17, 2009 11:07:17 GMT -5
The Xmen films I adored, because I had grown up with the comics- and realizing how much there was to adapt, and realizing how much Hollywood had NOT been faithful (or even respectful) to comic book source material at that point... I was expecting the worst, because it would have been a lot to cram into a two hour film successfully, but Singer really pulled it off and that there continues to be sequels should be credited to Singer. Having said that, though, my love of it may be more from the fact that I thought it was a great ADAPTATION. As an original movie on its own--- I'm way too biased, but Singer did a much better job of doing a standalone 'group' movie here than Snyder did with "wATCHMEN"- * (*which I admire for its ambition in trying to be faithful to the material- but which ultimately suffered, I thought, not from that, but from not putting just enough reality in it (from two really really really badly cast actresses in key parts to slight but giantly important omissions from the graphic novel when it got to the heart of it- to giant key omissions from the major subplot of the movie that make all the small bits not really add up to anything important) The first movie might not have been enough to hook a viewer in, I agree, with all of the characters introduced in the Xmen- but a lot of critics and viewers who weren't familiar with the universe felt that Xmen #1 was mainly an introduction, and really got into it and the characters with the second one. (*In other words, I can understand why those who didn't love the comic might not think the Xmen movie itself is anything great.) Which makes (to me) the idea of Singer not being able to do a second Superman movie -and give it the same Xmen 1-2 treatment EXTREMELY tragic. *sigh* AGREED.  Yeah, I SO know what you mean, CAM. I'm pretty sure that a sequel by him would have been fantastic AND more profitable. Also, you know, as much as I liked Watchmen. I did. I think I would have prefered Singer to do the adaptation of that film. I think he was just perfect for that type of material. He really did a great job with the XMen franchise, which I think is kinda similar to Watchmen in some ways. He definitely would have done a more accesible film for the mainstream. The guy is really that talented. Also, I'd love to see your review of both Superman Returns and Watchmen. Is that possible? Pretty please?  |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Apr 17, 2009 11:50:46 GMT -5
Seriously, Gandy....watch X-Men 2. Throw away your opinions of X-Men and watch that one specifically. If X2 doesn't do it for you, then your opinions will be vindicated.
That's if you haven't seen it, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 17, 2009 11:59:21 GMT -5
Hey Stargazer, I guess we think alike a lot. I can't seem to write short reviews, a review for SR and Watchmen would take me awhile to write, but will take a stab at it soon, just for you. The challenges of Xmen and Watchmen I agree are VERY similiar: #1: Large cast #2: Large amount of material to introduce and adapt #3: Key action scenes and peronal scenes to address #4: A mostly unknown source material to try to get mainstream audiences to enjoy in a film. And- the flaws that I found in the Watchmen film (the lack of a feeling of reality and personal moments that FELT real), Singer nails dead on. One example I always point out to friends is the moment in X2 when Pyro looks at Bobby's family portrait. Singer communicates so much properly in film, without having to have characters spell it out to the lowest common denominator. Snyder's version of Watchmen had me thinking: "Nice try, heart in the right place, but so did Superman IV". A Singer version of Watchmen would have had people reaching for their hankerchiefs at the end at how moving it was. If nothing else, many other directors who try to do comic book films and don't quite get it right, I think demonstrate just HOW good a director Singer is. Sad he's so vastly underrated. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 17, 2009 12:25:55 GMT -5
What can I say, I AGREE with everything you just said, CAM, especially with this, "And- the flaws that I found in the Watchmen film (the lack of a feeling of reality and personal moments that FELT real), Singer nails dead on. One example I always point out to friends is the moment in X2 when Pyro looks at Bobby's family portrait. Singer communicates so much properly in film, without having to have characters spell it out to the lowest common denominator.
Snyder's version of Watchmen had me thinking: "Nice try, heart in the right place, but so did Superman IV".
A Singer version of Watchmen would have had people reaching for their hankerchiefs at the end at how moving it was." Though I think Watchmen is way better than SIV easily, yes? Yeah, Singer's forte is narrative. One example is when Laurie (is that the correct name?) is crying in Mars after discovering that The Comedian was her real father; IMO, she came off as too whiny and a little fake. I think that the scene should have been more compelling than it was in the hands of a more competent director in the drama dept. "Hey Stargazer, I guess we think alike a lot. I can't seem to write short reviews, a review for SR and Watchmen would take me awhile to write, but will take a stab at it soon, just for you."THANK YOU! And I sure can wait. Oh, and I love long reviews, especially coming from people like you.  |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Apr 17, 2009 15:15:17 GMT -5
Seriously, Gandy....watch X-Men 2. Throw away your opinions of X-Men and watch that one specifically. If X2 doesn't do it for you, then your opinions will be vindicated. That's if you haven't seen it, of course. I've seen it. Twice. I dunno. I might watch them again soon. As for adaptations, it really depends on the book and how it is written and what the story is. I don't think it is wrong to jettison contents of a book in favour of a cinematic direction, but I think if you're going to adapt a book then it must have certain elements that make it worthy of its title. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 18, 2009 0:19:22 GMT -5
Agreed- Watchmen, to me, can mainly only be enjoyed for its parts, not the whole experience. Hopefully the directors' cut will feel more complete and correct (or improve upon) the flaws that were in the theatrical version.
|
|
Yeah, I SO know what you mean, CAM. I'm pretty sure that a sequel by him would have been fantastic AND more profitable. 