Zack Snyder to direct the newest Superman film

[Mr Vim]

Snyder, who brought us 300, and Watchmen has been announced as the director of this new film. I am very excited for this, because I think if anyone can give us a great Superman, it is Snyder.

When I went into my first viewing of Watchmen, I was so worried. I loved the graphic novel, with its eighties setting, garish design and violent material... and when I saw the film, it could not have been better, well it could have, but that film was a close as we were going to get and I will take that anyday.

Now I would have loved to Snyder's version of say the Batman after seeing how he understood Watchmen's centerpiece, Rorschach, the flawed human in the midst of the more media friendly hero... but Christopher Nolan won that award and did not dissapoint. And we get Nolan producing the new Superman film and David Goyer (who developed both stories for Batman Begins and the Dark Knight) writing the script.

I have good feelings about this project, what do you all think?

 

[Packin' Heat]

I don't really like Snyder, and I can't entirely blame him for this. I didn't care for 300 one bit. I also found Watchmen incredibly boring. The reason I don't blame Snyder is because I love the Watchmen graphic novel (I own the fancy $75 "Absolute" edition), and I know his film is almost totally true to the work--I guess it just didn't translate on screen very well (as Alan Moore predicted). As for 300, I'm guessing he was similarly true, I just didn't like it.

 

[Chasseur]

Mixed as well, I thought 300 was silly. I did like the Watchmen movie (loved the graphic novel), but I found that is not something I enjoyed as much watching a second time. It was more the material that I liked than the direction.

To be fair, I find Superman a difficult task to do successfully for a contemporary movie, that last one made me gag...

 

[Pompidou]

Perfect boyscout superheroes don't really cut it in this day and age. They'll have to make him complicated if the movie is going to be good - or at the very least, we're going to have to see a more violent Superman than ever before. If he's going to remain a pillar of virtue, which is fine, he's going to need to be over the top ruthless against his opponents. That means, if they're going to stay true to the Superman roots, the villains are going to have to be the strongest ever, because Superman almost by definition, can have any power convenient to the plot. He's always just strong enough for the task. Superman won't really succeed like Batman and Ironman unless they up the violence. A Superman that kills - that just might do it.

 

[LocktownDog]

A Superman that kills - that just might do it.

Nope. Then its not Superman.

I'd like to see a film version of the Death Of Superman. When that comic came out many years ago, it was a shock.

 

[Mr Vim]

Good points all,

the boyscout aspect was always a stretch wasn't it? I always felt that the
90's animated series was our best glimpse at Superman. It was wholsome, funny, and they could cut loose on his abilities without worrying about the budget.

Of course I would really like to see a film with the tonality of the old Max Fleischer cartoons but I don't think that will ever happen.

I think the most crucial point for this upcoming movie is how the film captures the dynamic between Clark Kent and Superman. Most of the time in the comics writers today ignore it entirely. Smallville the show failed completely in my eyes from day one in that regard. The greatest monlogue on the subject was by David Carradine as Bill in Kill Bill volume 2.

Has anyone read Superman: Birthright? That was a fantastic Superman book.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I'm fairly optimistic about this: if anybody can pull off a decent Superman film, it's Snyder with story input from Nolan. Both are smart and innovative and have done excellent work in the superhero genre.

I REALLY disliked Superman Returns, which I thought was wrong both in trying to be a sequel/retread of the old Chris Reeve series, and in the new stuff it brought to it, like Lois' child and Supes' self-pitying loneliness, not to mention the whole seeming-death and resurrection thing. I really hate that particular dramatic gambit, whether it's E.T. or Superman! (Besides, Superman isn't Jesus, he's Moses!)

 

[Mr Vim]

Doc, I agree Superman Returns was not the best Superman film, but I have to give credit to the set designers, who gave a great architectured Metropolis (Mr. Snyder, please hire these folks again) and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Yes he hammed it up once awhile, but there were moments, like when he tested the kyptonite tube on the boy, where he glared at Lois, I was creeped out by his presence. If they have to cast him again, I can't think of anyone better.

But from what I read, Zod is going to be the main villain. Which is kind of dull really. Can they please find a villain that has not already been done? One with powers comparable to Wonder Boy... I mean Superman? (Sorry, Tenascious D is in my head.)

 

[Doctor Strange]

Well, Kevin Spacey really stood out as an actual actor, considering that he was surrounded by Brandon Routh imitating Chris Reeve, and Kate Bosworth looking like a high school girl playing dress-up as an investigative journalist! (I never realized until then how much I liked Margot Kidder's sassy, mature, less glamorous take on the role!) If it was supposed to be five years later, why were both Clark and Lois clearly YOUNGER than the last time?!?

Zod... geez, it sounds like they're still trying to retread the Chris Reeve series, which is a huge mistake. There's so much good Superman lore that hasn't been done at all in live action, and some that hasn't been done in a while. (E.g., I was interested to hear the rumor floating around a couple of weeks ago of having a more mature, George Reeves-style Superman this time, with Jon Hamm being considered for the role.)

Well, we'll just have to see what happens with this...

 

[Chasseur]

I agree with Lockdown Dog, I can't imagine a dark and gritty Superman who kills people. I don't think you can do the 1990s Marvel "revise the hero for modern times" by making Superman unshaven, and giving him a trenchcoat and a shotgun...

But as long as its better than that Superstalker movie with Routh and Bosworth... Actually that was one movie I didn't like Kevin Spacey's perfomance in, but then again nothing with the exception of set design worked in that movie for me[huh]

 

[Mr Vim]

I just thought of this, have 2 cameos... Lex Luthor (Spacey or not) and Darkseid, have him be pulling the strings behind whatever villain.

And Darkseid has to be either animatronic or computer animated, or force prospective, because he has to be massive. That would get some great Superman lore into it don't you think?

Voice of Darkseid? I am thinking Ian McShane (spelling?) or... actaully I cannot think of any other voice presence.

Shoot, if they don't want to do Darkseid, do Brainiac... he had a great run on the animated series, the character was well rounded.

Thoughts?

 

[Pompidou]

Darkseid would be perfect. If Superman is going to compete with other superhero movies, he needs a villain that can take all his firepower and survive. Kill or not - doesn't really matter, I guess, but he needs to be pretty viciously fighting. I just don't think the same old "Hey guys, I'm bullet proof" thing is going to work again. Whether he's "action hero posing" with his chest flared and fists at his hips, deflecting a barrage of machine gun bullets, or just taking one in the eye, they can't keep reusing the same material. Superman needs to be more than just invincible. If the movie comes down to kryptonite again, I'm not sure anyone will care.

 

[MrBern]

Routh out?

Sorry to read this:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118025138.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Routh isn't likely to don the red and blue tights again, Snyder said.

 

[Mr Vim]

It's good to see there are some comic book geeks amongst the well hatted here at the lounge.

io9.com had a nice article about the twenty ways not to screw up the new Superman film, and lo and behold, Darkseid popped up.

here's the link
http://io9.com/5656572/20-ways-zack-snyders-superman-can-avoid-becoming-a-superdisaster

 

[Mr Vim]

Wow, io9.com is really throwing articles out about this... here is an article talking about... the villains we've never seen in a Superman film.

http://io9.com/5659948/superman-rogues-gallery-post-+-draft

 

[Mr Vim]

Superman revealed!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the new Superman...

 

[Doctor Strange]

I don't care for the texture on the suit fabric (*), but it looks really good apart from that. The bigger S and longer cape (and hair) is cool.

Henry Cavill has more presence in this still than Brandon Routh managed in an entire film.

(* One of my standard complaints. It applies to next year's Spider-Man costume too. And I already said on another thread how much I preferred Captain America's cloth USO-tour costume to the layered/textured look of his later exploits. Give me a straight translation of classic comics costumes over an "improved, more realistic reimagining" anytime!)

 

[Argee]

It's hard to see in this photo, but the biggest change is no red trunks. The look is very similar to the revamped comic Superman costume DC recently unveiled. Though I reserve the right to be wrong about that, we'll see if the rumors are true when we get a better picture.

 

[Mr Vim]

Io9.com has the following plot synopsis and it sounds very interesting. I won't post it here due to some minor SPOILERS but here is the link:

http://io9.com/5832086/tons-of-spoi...tor-who-plus-a-new-man-of-steel-plot-synopsis

This film just got a little more interesting to me. Hmm.

 

[Edward]

I don't really like Snyder, and I can't entirely blame him for this. I didn't care for 300 one bit. I also found Watchmen incredibly boring. The reason I don't blame Snyder is because I love the Watchmen graphic novel (I own the fancy $75 "Absolute" edition), and I know his film is almost totally true to the work--I guess it just didn't translate on screen very well (as Alan Moore predicted). As for 300, I'm guessing he was similarly true, I just didn't like it.

Alan Moore is something of an ingrate, IMO. He seems to make rather a nice living from his works being adapted into films, then running about shooting his mouth off about hating them - after he has taken their money, of course. I liked both book and film. I could have lived without the sex scene in Archie (though the fact if it taking place is a very important plot point, and should be included), a real waste of screen time that could have been devoted to something much more interesting like the Genesis of Rorschach's mask. Overall, though, I really enjoyed the film, and felt it brought the book to life well. I was very pleased that they did not try to change the 1980s setting, and that they stayed true to Rorschach in all his unpleasant glory as a nasty, petty, misanthropic little fascist (though for all that the only one of the main protagonists with any true integrity). The Comedian was a much more sympathetic figure in the film, which I found interesting. Lovely portrayal, and I very much appreciated having him on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Where the film, IMO, bettered the book was in using John in place of the squid at the end. The squid, it seemed to me, would quickly be proven to be a fraud, but John was a known, deadly force, so the idea of him turning on humanity....

Mixed as well, I thought 300 was silly. I did like the Watchmen movie (loved the graphic novel), but I found that is not something I enjoyed as much watching a second time. It was more the material that I liked than the direction.

To be fair, I find Superman a difficult task to do successfully for a contemporary movie, that last one made me gag...

The messiah theme might have worked as a subtext, but it was just so unsubtly and clumsily done as to be awful. I find Superman a weak character - there's just so little substance to it, and he's far too goody two shoes most of the time - anyhow, but this was a poor film on every level. Any worse and I'd have assumed it was some rediscovered, mid 1980s Spielberg affair.

Nope. Then its not Superman.

I'd like to see a film version of the Death Of Superman. When that comic came out many years ago, it was a shock.

I vaguely remember a Man of Steel graphic novel which included a story about Superman either disappearing or dying as far as the world was concerned.... I think he walked into a heavily kryptonited plant or something? But in the end we saw he'd just retired and was living under another alias as a human. Same story? I liked the idea of him retiring without having to lose his powers first: that he chose to lay it down rather than having no other option (even if, a la Superman II, he lost the powers by his own active choice). Much more interesting that he could still do it but no longer wants to.

Well, Kevin Spacey really stood out as an actual actor, considering that he was surrounded by Brandon Routh imitating Chris Reeve, and Kate Bosworth looking like a high school girl playing dress-up as an investigative journalist! (I never realized until then how much I liked Margot Kidder's sassy, mature, less glamorous take on the role!) If it was supposed to be five years later, why were both Clark and Lois clearly YOUNGER than the last time?!?

It's like Bond all over again..... I agree re Margot Kidder. It seems like, in Superman's world, women's place in society is constantly regressing. I particularly hated Terri Hatcher's Lois, who was a materialistic, self-centred bitch to a degrre where she'd have fitted right in on Sex and the City. Vile character.

Zod... geez, it sounds like they're still trying to retread the Chris Reeve series, which is a huge mistake. There's so much good Superman lore that hasn't been done at all in live action, and some that hasn't been done in a while. (E.g., I was interested to hear the rumor floating around a couple of weeks ago of having a more mature, George Reeves-style Superman this time, with Jon Hamm being considered for the role.)

Well, we'll just have to see what happens with this...