Man of Steel (2013)

[Scissorpuppy]

I don't think Nolan is planning on Directing Superman, just overseeing it gets made. Rumor has it his brother will be directing.

By the time B3 comes out in 2012, it would have been a 4 year wait since TDK. Waiting any longer than that could potentially be a mistake. Timing has always got to be right with sequels, rush one out and it's usually crap. Wait too long and nobody cares anymore. Wait forever and the hype builds to the point where it's considered shit before it's even made.

[crazy_asian_man]

By the time B3 comes out in 2012, it would have been a 4 year wait since TDK. Waiting any longer than that could potentially be a mistake. Timing has always got to be right with sequels, rush one out and it's usually crap. Wait too long and nobody cares anymore. Wait forever and the hype builds to the point where it's considered shit before it's even made.

Well said!

[Scissorpuppy]

Latest from Nolan on Superman via report at AICN

- Nolan’s films have been about haunted figures to a film… so how was he drawn to produce Superman? “As you said, it’s something I’m doing as a producer. Obviously I’m not directing it, but my involvement in it is quite specific. While David Goyer and myself were wrestling with the story for another Batman film as we got stuck he said to me, kind of out of the blue one day, that he had a great idea for how to take on Superman. I thought it was terrific and I just felt like I didn’t want it to not get done, so I went to the studio and said, ‘Let’s have a crack at this.’ That’s the nature of my involvement.”

- Speaking of, Richard Donner’s Superman was very influential to Nolan on Batman Begins. “I literally pitched the studio my take on Batman by saying I wanted to make the Batman film that had never been made in 1978 or 1979.” He was attracted to the Dick Donner take of putting an extraordinary hero in an ordinary world.

- He told the studio he wanted to shoot just like they did (in an American city for locations and then in English studios), he wanted to cast like they did, build an ensemble. “Now all these superhero movies come out and they have these great casts, but when we did Batman Begins I was looking back at that movie. They had Gene Hackman and Marlon Brando and Glenn Ford and all these incredible actors around the principals. That’s how I got permission from the studio to cast up this comic book movie.”

NOLAN FUCKING GETS IT! You can be inspired by what made STM special without REMAKING what made it special. I enjoined Returns, but it lacked an original voice, and what little it did bring to the table clashed with the "love letter" to STM.

I don't think we have much to worry about here guys.

[Legsy]

Yep, he does seem to get it.

I just hope he cast Routh as Supes. If not Routh, Welling. I highly doubt it. I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery.

[crazy_asian_man]

I still wonder how much Nolan will REALLY be involved in it:
In the aintitcoolnews.com newspiece, he said his involvement was 'specific' and that he liked Goyer's take on it so much, that he put his hat in the ring and making sure WB would greenlight it..... but since 'producer' can be so loose in terms of what someone is responsible for---

Slightly worried....but something is better than staying in limbo for another 30 years.

I enjoined Returns, but it lacked an original voice, and what little it did bring to the table clashed with the "love letter" to STM.

Now that time has passed, I think the main failing -(mainstream wise and marketing wise) is that there was nothing 'new' visually that made SR a 'must-see'. If Singer had included Brainiac into SR, that might have made it worth the price of admission alone. Or Darkseid.

But--- when STM came out, there WERE no other Superhero films of that scale/caliber...and only a few scifi/fantasy blockbusters (Star Wars just started a couple of years earlier). When SR came out, many great scifi/fantasy/supehero became a regular staple of the summer.

I know when I saw the ads for SR, I was not impressed. I was dead set on going to see it because it was Singer + Supes...... but if I wasn't a Supes/Singer fan, the ads showed nothing REALLY new visually that I hadn't seen before.

If Nolan's Superman film doesn't have a visually dynamic villain, hard to see it being an uber-blockbuster, myself. But..... I have a hunch Goyer is sharp enough to know that fans want to see MORE than just Luthor's bald dome. (If Superman faces businessmen as his main villain, could be the best film of the year, but given what technology and a great budget can bring nowadays, I'd be VERY disappointed)

[stargazer01]

Jun 15, 2010 11:24:40 GMT -5 Legsy said:

Yep, he does seem to get it.

I just hope he cast Routh as Supes. If not Routh, Welling. I highly doubt it. I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Yup.

Now that time has passed, I think the main failing -(mainstream wise and marketing wise) is that there was nothing 'new' visually that made SR a 'must-see'. If Singer had included Brainiac into SR, that might have made it worth the price of admission alone. Or Darkseid.

The plane rescue was awesome. Still the best action sequence in a superhero movie. That alone was worth the price of admission, imo. Well, that and Supes himself.

Also, you don't bring the bigger villains in your first film. Metallo, Parasite, even Zod could have been fine for that, imo. Still, SR made as much at the BO as BB, and the later got a sequel. Yeah, I know the prod. budget was higher for SR as well as the expectations, plus many hated 'the kid', etc. What Im trying to say is that the SR sequel could have been a much more marketable film with some small changes and additions here and there. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be I suppose...


I was also thinking that Bryan Singer must be feeling really humilliated right now. Good.

Nolan is indeed the King Midas of Hollywood right now apparently. Let's see how long it lasts.

[ye5man]

You can be inspired by what made STM special without REMAKING what made it special. I enjoined Returns, but it lacked an original voice, and what little it did bring to the table clashed with the "love letter" to STM.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[crazy_asian_man]

The plane rescue was awesome. Still the best action sequence in a superhero movie. That alone was worth the price of admission, imo. Well, that and Supes himself.

Also, you don't bring the bigger villains in your first film. Metallo, Parasite, even Zod could have been fine for that, imo. Still, SR made as much at the BO as BB, and the later got a sequel. Yeah, I know the prod. budget was higher for SR as well as the expectations, plus many hated 'the kid', etc. What Im trying to say is that the SR sequel could have been a much more marketable film with some small changes and additions here and there. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be I suppose...

I thought the drama was unique and was the 'gold' in the film to me. The superhero stuff..... was a mix to me. I thought the airplane moment was effective, but I didn't nearly love that as much as other bits in the film. I loved enough of the movie, but I've always felt that since part one & part two weren't guaranteed to be made, it would not have hurt the film to have introduced a new villain as well that might have added some extra spice to the mix.

[stargazer01]

Jun 16, 2010 11:05:53 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

The plane rescue was awesome. Still the best action sequence in a superhero movie. That alone was worth the price of admission, imo. Well, that and Supes himself.

Also, you don't bring the bigger villains in your first film. Metallo, Parasite, even Zod could have been fine for that, imo. Still, SR made as much at the BO as BB, and the later got a sequel. Yeah, I know the prod. budget was higher for SR as well as the expectations, plus many hated 'the kid', etc. What Im trying to say is that the SR sequel could have been a much more marketable film with some small changes and additions here and there. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be I suppose...

I thought the drama was unique and was the 'gold' in the film to me. The superhero stuff..... was a mix to me. I thought the airplane moment was effective, but I didn't nearly love that as much as other bits in the film. I loved enough of the movie, but I've always felt that since part one & part two weren't guaranteed to be made, it would not have hurt the film to have introduced a new villain as well that might have added some extra spice to the mix.

The drama stuff was also my fave part of the film (that and Brandon's portrayal of Supes/Clark were the main reason I went to see the film more than 10 times at the theater, something I never did before for any other film.), but my reply to your post was about this,

Now that time has passed, I think the main failing -(mainstream wise and marketing wise) is that there was nothing 'new' visually that made SR a 'must-see'.

To me seeing Superman in live action rescuing a huge plane full of people was something I had never seen before.

[Jor-L5150]

NOLAN FUCKING GETS IT! You can be inspired by what made STM special without REMAKING what made it special. I enjoined Returns, but it lacked an original voice, and what little it did bring to the table clashed with the "love letter" to STM.

I don't think we have much to worry about here guys.

with a bit of caution, i tend to agree. i have NEVER been unhappy with a nolan film. time will tell.

i buy all of you a beverage of choice if i am wrong:
- it won't be welling. ( please jesus buddha thor please)
- it won't be routh. ( i'll be glad to be wrong, drink up. )

[crazy_asian_man]

The drama stuff was also my fave part of the film (that and Brandon's portrayal of Supes/Clark were the main reason I went to see the film more than 10 times at the theater, something I never did before for any other film.)

I think I went six or seven, would have even gone more, but by that time I saw it the last time, the movie got transferred from the 'big' screen in town to a tiny one, and wasn't interested in paying $10 to see ANY movie on the small screen- and, besides, I knew I'd buy it on dvd once available.

Now that time has passed, I think the main failing -(mainstream wise and marketing wise) is that there was nothing 'new' visually that made SR a 'must-see'.

To me seeing Superman in live action rescuing a huge plane full of people was something I had never seen before.

I know the poll here had the plane rescue as one of the highlights of the film.... oddly, I thought it was well done, but since we'd seen Superman rescue Airforce One in STM in a few minutes, I thought it primarily a longer version of that. I wanted to, but didn't get nearly the same 'charge' from it as the helicopter rescue in STM... nor the appearance of Superman on the flagpole of SII when he's confronting the villains.

Those moments in STM and SII felt special- but the plane rescue felt like it was well done. The moments AFTER the rescue where Supes sees Lois on the plane and walks out to suprising cheer is fantastic- but, oddly, (to me), the plane rescue itself didn't have me dropping my jaw as much as those other bits.

The helicopter rescue is shot and edited in such a tight fashion, that I could see it over and over again. When I rewatch SR on dvd, there are great moments to the plane rescue, but overall it always felt a little long and the long shots of Superman always felt a little too CG for me (and I don't even think I'm that picky on CG shots in general).

When it came to the drama stuff: Singer got five stars in my book (out of five).
When it came to the Superhero stuff in SR: It got maybe a three, or a three and a half.

A youtube joke video put it best: the Spiderman and Batman movies had great visual villains most of the time. Superman Returns got a big rock as its main villain.

As you know, though, in spite of the rock, the artistry of the dramatic stuff is what I love the best of SR.... and.... yeah..... I'll also similiarly mourn the lack of an SR 2. *sigh*

[stargazer01]

I also love that Superman risks his life to save the world when he lifts the crystal island up into space. Such amazing feat of strength; Superman lifting mountains with his mighty fists.

For the record,

Lifting the crystal island >> turning back time




I enjoy both, but turning back time actually makes me cringe a little, especially when watching it with other adults.

That doesn't happen with the lifting of the island, though. ;D

[Scissorpuppy]

What I don't understand is (and I remember pointing this out to Shogan and Chance after we first saw it) Superman basically just got his ass kicked and poisoned by Kryptonite. He then is able to pick up this HUGE Kryptonite island? I know he "repowered" for a moment in the sun, but seriously? Am I missing something? Shouldn't a Krypto rock that big kill Superman before he even has a chance to lift it off the ground?

[HOSNI]

Yes, yes it should. Was still a pretty cool moment though

[Keith]

It wasn't full on Kryptonite. Which is why when he landed on the island to confront Luthor he didn't even notice that he was slowly weakening.

Superman charged up enough in the sun to lift the island up out of the water and as soon as he was above the clouds he was getting a direct source of the sun, which kept him getting enough power to slowly push it out into space, until his body couldn't take the Kryptonite inside the island anymore and fell to the earth.

That's my take on it and it doesn't bother me at all.

[The Phantom Menace]

Jun 17, 2010 21:42:01 GMT -5 Keith said:

It wasn't full on Kryptonite. Which is why when he landed on the island to confront Luthor he didn't even notice that he was slowly weakening.

Superman charged up enough in the sun to lift the island up out of the water and as soon as he was above the clouds he was getting a direct source of the sun, which kept him getting enough power to slowly push it out into space, until his body couldn't take the Kryptonite inside the island anymore and fell to the earth.

That's my take on it and it doesn't bother me at all.

The only thing that bothers me is that it's later revealed that Lois hadn't complete removed the shard of pure kryptonite from Suprman's side.

[HOSNI]

Ditto, because it's deadly


to him.

[stargazer01]

Jun 17, 2010 21:42:01 GMT -5 Keith said:

It wasn't full on Kryptonite. Which is why when he landed on the island to confront Luthor he didn't even notice that he was slowly weakening.

Superman charged up enough in the sun to lift the island up out of the water and as soon as he was above the clouds he was getting a direct source of the sun, which kept him getting enough power to slowly push it out into space, until his body couldn't take the Kryptonite inside the island anymore and fell to the earth.

That's my take on it and it doesn't bother me at all.

Agreed, plus it was clearly implied that Supes made sure to go deep under the island, using that seabed rock as a shield from the kryptonite (which was diluited by the crystal and the rest of the minerals that were around it when it first formed in the ocean). I dunno, it works for me just fine, and it still almost killed him, but thanks to Jason and Lois to a lesser extent, he came back to life.

[Legsy]

Aye.

I never understood this argument from SR haters.

There have been many cases where us humans do Super things while being injured. Why can't we accept Superman doing something extrodoary (for Supes) under the circumstances?

[crazy_asian_man]

I also love that Superman risks his life to save the world when he lifts the crystal island up into space. Such amazing feat of strength; Superman lifting mountains with his mighty fists.

For the record,

Lifting the crystal island >> turning back time

No argument there--- that whole section where Supes pushes the kryptonite island into space/
falls to earth is incredibly artistic and moving. That section was perfect imo-

And....no disagreement on turning back time. I loved the moment where Supes goes into a rage and sees both father figures in the clouds in STM, but turning back time is not something I've ever been in love with. If anything, I wonder why that isn't more of a 'violation' of the Superman mythos far more than having a son. (Which makes it far more interesting imo- at least, in how Singer approached it)

[ye5man]

That whole scene of him lifting that island was pure bullshit and written by people who have no idea what Superman is about.

You think you can do extraordinary thing with will power? Try getting shot in the kneecaps and then run for your life. No amount of willpower will make you move.


Whoever wrote that crap obviously needed to study their subject material.


Superman is weakened by Kryptonite, end of story. Why can't some of you people realise that?

[matt]

[Scissorpuppy]

I think it really all boils down to how "Super" one prefers Superman to be shown as. I dunno I think when it gets to the point that Superman is lifting Islands, Frozen Lakes and even turning back time to me it boarders on ridiculous.

And for the record, I love Superman Returns.

[crazy_asian_man]

That whole scene of him lifting that island was pure bullshit and written by people who have no idea what Superman is about....

I thought the scene was brilliant and moving... to me, being a Superman comic book fan since the 60's- Thought it was EXACTLY what Superman was about.

Either one of us is completely wrong, or..... maybe we can just agree to disagree on this movie.
And leave it at that.

[ye5man]

MJD, I don't see any Krpytonite in that comic strip


If all he had to do was use "Super Will power" (LOL) to over come it then why couldn't he manage to just slip off the necklace in the pool in STM?