David Goyer to Write the New Superman Movie!
Source: ComingSoon
Latino Review has broken the news that David Goyer will write the new Superman movie, to be titled The Man of Steel!
The site's scooper said that Goyer "had an idea that actually takes the movies back to the John Byrne incarnation. Modern. Believable. FUN!"
The site adds that Brandon Routh will not star in the film and Bryan Singer is not expected to direct.
About the story, the scooper adds: "I can tell you that Goyer's story involves Luthor and Brainiac. It is NOT an origin and assumes audiences already know about Lois, Clark, Jimmy and Perry. I know the Daily Planet is struggling due to the internet. And I know it sets up a huge Kryptonian mythology."
Well, it worked for Batman. Re-Boot with Nolan and Goyer is actually a good business plan, keep going until it stops.
I wonder how far the time ratio will end up diminishing with these re-boots? It was three years for Hulk, ten for the Spider-Man which included sequels...will it get to two or under? Will a potential franchise flail and the sequel come out in less than two years with a completely different take and a massive investment?
They should just start simultaneously releasing two entirely different versions of every movie. Whichever one takes, they can make sequels off of it.
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 24, 2010, 03:32:41 PM
And I know it sets up a huge Kryptonian mythology."
That's my worry. Superman Returns forfeited entertainment for a more dramatic story. The Man of Steel could be doing the same for a mythology a lot of people aren't interested in. I watched Superman II the other week and it's still a really charming film, but the franchise seems to be afraid of trying to make Superman charming unless they're copying how Christopher Reeve did it. I seriously believe Eric Bana could play the role to his own toughness and humor and make Superman a great character again without doing a Reeve impersonation. If the story is good and the other characters are fine, most people would accept a new Superman persona.
It still would be PG humor and no derogatory jokes of any kind, but I think Bana can wield an equivalent charm to Reeve's.
fucking hell, don't call it "mythology" when it's just a bunch of shit people make up to sell to little kids.
What do you think the Greeks did, Pete?
interesting quip matt. but i think there's a clear difference between the development of mythology which was not exclusively the greek's invention (unlike the romans who just stole it from them) but rather an evolution of fundamental ideas inspired by human experience over generations, wars, heros, etc. and what should simply be called "backstory".
they've added a bit of backstory.
what are guys talking about, it's not like mythology is a sacred word and it's mention is an offense to Zeus or anything.
If the story goes into the legends/gods/etc of Krypton then it goes into kryptonian mythology.
It's as if they said : ''we will expand on the religion in Krypton'' and you guys be like : "How dare they call it a religion it's just stuff to sell to kids" or "it's not religion it's just backstory!" It's their fictional religion, their fictional mythology. No biggie.
i never said religion but you seem to be saying i am equating mythology with religion somehow.
obviously i'm not. i don't care that they say mythology, i just don't think it's technically accurate description of what they're doing, it's just another buzz word for execs to use to sound smart or to make their product seem important. a simpler word would suffice, like saying USE instead of UTILIZE.
my post was in reply to whatever Matt meant, which i tried to guess was trying to equate GREEK MYTHOLOGY -- which yes was kinda like a religion -- with backstory constructed to reboot a comic franchise. just felt like his weird "gotcha" comment (nopalin) needed some clarification cos it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
matt, don't try to call me out again you smug overgrown child. trying to one-up a comment that was tongue-in-cheek already. Jesus. Your trip around the world has only made you smugger.
but yeah, P already said what I was going to say while I was asleep - every backstory to a movie can't be a mythology. franchise or mythology. choose one. it just seems like people are starting to believe the importance of these comic books now.
I am not saying you are equating religion with mythology. I am also not saying these words are equivalent, I was making an example. Both can be used to describe serious stuff like ''greek mythology'', ''christian religion'' and fictional silly stuff like ''star wars mythology'' or ''XYZ fictional religion'' without any offense to anyone or anything.
I had felt that you and pete were insulted by the use of the word ''mythology'' as if it was an offensive because the subject (Superman) was too trivial for the word. I still think it is the case for Pete but I won't speak for him.
As for being technically accurate, well, it depends. We don't even know what they are doing. Maybe they are really expanding the kryptonian mythology, maybe they are just adding backstory. The use/utilize example doesn't really stand because it's not like a simpleton (spelling?) could day : "oh, Hercules, the guy in the greek backstory?'' that sentence wouldn't make any sense.
Anyway I'm just saying, I don't think it's a big deal at all that the word mythology is used for films or anything
well, if you're just gonna define mythology as things that people believe that are made up, then sure, go ahead and call everything a mythology. the execs chose the word to add importance to their shitty decisions and the whole around has rallied around it though, and that's different.
actually it's also different because nobody ever got paid to sit around and write mythologies and have it checked and given notes for 5 to 9 months so the mythology could be copyrighted and owned by a studio and its intellectual property to be defended by 20 lawyers. in that case it's not like mythology at all.
I'm sorry but you are confused about the sacredness of the word mythology.
Quote from: pete on February 25, 2010, 11:32:40 AM
nobody ever got paid to sit around and write mythologies and have it checked and given notes for 5 to 9 months so the mythology could be copyrighted and owned by a studio and its intellectual property to be defended by 20 lawyers. in that case it's not like mythology at all.
The Kryptonian mythology in the real world (aka the planet earth world) is written in ''5 to 9 months''. In the kryptonian world, this thing was written in 10, 100, or 10 million years. Who cares. It's a fictional world!
Quote from: pete on February 25, 2010, 11:21:05 AM
every backstory to a movie can't be a mythology. franchise or mythology. choose one.
I don't even know what this means. Franchise or mythology? What is the kryptonian franchise?
Quote from: pete on February 25, 2010, 11:21:05 AM
it just seems like people are starting to believe the importance of these comic books now.
No, you are giving much more importance to the word mythology than it has!!!
Look, I am making up planet Dingdong. On planet Dingdong, there are many gods and ancient heroes. Picpic is the god of lightning and Taktak is the god of sea. There is the ancient hero Toctoc who made many adventures and defeated the might magic dragon Crocroc. I just made up a mythology for the planet Dingdong in one minute. It's nothing special.
Haha, I do agree with you, Pete and P. My post was a total joke, not a one-up or an attempt to jam a second tongue in that cheek. Thank god my comment doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because it was a completely ironic comment. It just made me laugh to think of old Greek men in togas peddling Zeus comics to little kids. That is the only idea behind that post. The notion that I would ever try to make a serious point or call anyone out in this Man of Steel thread is hilarious to me, because this movie is clearly being made by people who will say any and all words if they thought it would sell tickets. What impetus do they have to choose between only saying "franchise" or only saying "mythology?" To them, it's a mega franchise mythological reboot zero-calorie sundae with sprinkles on top, if that'll get people interested.
I am aware of the difference between that and ancient mythology.
I'll call you out on one thing, though, Pete: I am not overgrown!
Quote from: Pas Rap on February 25, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
Look, I am making up planet Dingdong. On planet Dingdong, there are many gods and ancient heroes. Picpic is the god of lightning and Taktak is the god of sea. There is the ancient hero Toctoc who made many adventures and defeated the might magic dragon Crocroc. I just made up a mythology for the planet Dingdong in one minute. It's nothing special.
those are adorable names. even more adorable than your username.
lol ok
Which annoys you more though, the comic book mythologies or the ''myth'' that girls sometimes kiss first?
I think you being adorable and not getting it tickles me the most.
You somehow remind me of a smartass 12 year old kid I knew who acted tough because he knew karate and then still got his ass kicked
now you're just being annoying.
and also we now have a consensus on the mythology thing, and I have the last word against pas rap, lets move on everybody!
Yeah you're that kid
To actually do a Superman movie that's worth doing, mythology is key, but not in the way they're using the word. He doesn't need more complex backstory, he needs a story that actually delves into the possibilities of what it would mean to have a man with the powers of a god walking around among us. How does someone who grew up on a farm in Kansas deal with the knowledge that he can single-handedly save or destroy the world? That he can hear any bad thing happening and get there fast enough to stop it, but instead of just helping people all the time, he spends eight hours a day working for a newspaper? I don't give a shit if the villain is Lex Luthor or Brainiac or Mr. fucking Mxyzptlk, I just want a movie with some thematic sense, that understands that fighting bad guys is the least interesting thing about the character.
Myth is exactly what people make to sell to other people. What's the argument again?
I like the idea of Bana, he could be a bit old if they're looking to stretch this line of films over a decade though.
anyone else think Jon Hamm would be the perfect superman?
I'm on board for Jon Hamm. I would love to see them go older. One of the biggest problems (out of quite a few big problems) with Superman Returns was that it felt like kids playing dress-up. It was the Bugsy Malone of superhero movies.
Rumor is that Jonah Nolan will direct Superman.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/26/more-crazy-rumors-jonah-nolan-to-direct-superman/
Aronofsky may direct Superman
by Clint Morris; Moviehole
He mightn't be known for directing commercial blockbusters, but that doesn't mean Darren Aronofsky hasn't flirted with the odd Superhero movie or tentpole xerox.
The "Fountain" and "Wrestler" helmer was of course attached to the "RoboCop" remake at MGM (on hold because of the studio's recent troubles), and you'll recall he was circling "Wolverine" there for a while. Most famously, Aronofsky had committed to directing "Batman Year One", a prequel to the Burton-directed 1989 film, years before - think it was about 2001 when Aronofsky signed on - Christopher Nolan handshaked to bring "Batman Begins" to the big screen. Aronofsky, said to be quite the fan of the Caped Crusader, worked on the script with famed comic writer Frank Miller. Alas, the project fell apart and both Aronofsky and Miller went on to work on other projects.
News today from The LA Times is that Aronofsky is talking to producer Christopher Nolan about directing Warner's big-budget "Superman" reboot. The filmmaker is merely one of a handful of filmmakers being considered for the job, but with the buzz on the forthcoming "Black Swan" and Warner's solid working relationship with Aronofsky, he'd assumingly be atop of the list.
I'm sure Aronofsky's "Superman" would be quite the picture... but you have to wonder just how drastically different it might be to the Superman movies we know and love. After all, the filmmaker's "Batman" was going to be very, very different from the original films and comics - hell, the eventual pic would've had some fans up in arms!
"Batman Year One" was going to be a 'real world' version of "Batman" (even more so than Nolan's films) : Alfred was going to be an African-American junkyard owner named 'Big Al', Selina Kyle would work in an underground prostitute hub across the street from the junkyard (where Bruce Wayne would later work), Bruce's costume would be no more than a 'hockey mask' and self-made 'cape', and, for the majority of the movie, the son of slaughtered billionaires would have no clue that he's 'in the money'.
So what would an Aronofsky-directed "Superman" be like? Would Superman only possess the ability to run fast when strapped to motorized roller skates? Would Lois Lane be having an affair with Perry White? Would Jimmy be a street punk that Clark attempts to save - ultimately losing him to Metropolis' shonky car-dealer king, Lex 'The Loon' Luthor!?
Guess we'll find out. Or not.
Update! A friend that worked on "Black Swan" with Mr Aronofsky tells us that the filmmaker has actually "been talking about this for a while" and that they don't think talks have "progressed beyond the suggestion of having Nat[alie Portman] be Lois. They wanted her first time around, this time they can get her - with Darren. But who knows where that's at now" Now that's cool! And I assume they're referring to the studio being keen on Ms Portman for "Superman Returns". "...nothing on paper yet. Don't add his name to the IMDB director listing on the film's page yet", she adds.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's a swan, it's a plane...Darren Aronofsky latest name to surface in Superman director search
Source: Los Angeles Times
When we interviewed Darren Aronofsky at the start of the Toronto International Film Festival, he had a deadpan answer on the progress of "Robocop," the remake of the 1980s action movie that has been felled by financial problems at MGM.
"I think I'm still attached," he said. "I don't know. I haven't heard from anyone in a while."
Now there's talk that he could make his studio debut with a different classic property: Superman.
As he intensifies his search for a director on the Warner Bros. reboot, Christopher Nolan, who's godfathering the new Superman and producing the David Goyer script, has had discussions with Aronofsky about the job, sources say.
Aronfosky's latest, "Black Swan," the hybrid dramatic thriller with Natalie Portman, looks on track to become an art-house hit, if not more, and the idea would be to bring Aronofsky's auteur sensibility to the comic book mythology (much as Nolan has done with Batman).
Of course, Aronofsky is just one name among many. Nolan and producing partner Emma Thomas are casting a net wider than Krypton for the job, with Zack Snyder (a man known for action scenes and physical movement), Matt Reeves (getting heat off this Friday's "Let Me In") and a number of veteran filmmakers also reportedly in the running.
There would also be questions about how the relationship would work between two strong-willed auteurs like Aronosky and Nolan. And the "Wrestler" director has famously resisted taking on bigger-budget studio pictures in the interest of retaining creative control.
Still, it's an enticing idea to bring on an Aronofsky or someone of his ilk. He and Nolan have had similar roots, if vastly different trajectories. Both gained acclaim for low-budget indies that told fractured stories (Nolan with "Following" and Aronofsky with "Pi") and have continued to maintain an auteur vision even as they worked with bigger stars. If Warner Bros. and financier Legendary are going to give Nolan a significant degree of creative freedom, it makes sense to go with someone who knows how to make the most of that.
Still long ways to go before any real idea of the project can be surmised to come even come to half of a judgment, but this is not a confidence builder for me.
http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/10/superman-zack-snyder.html
Zack Snyder directing Superman
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Superman-overlooking-metropolis Zack Snyder has been chosen to direct the new Superman movie, which Christopher Nolan is producing for Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures. Negotiations began earlier today.
Snyder, who directed "300" and "Watchmen," had been on the list of helmers ensconced in meetings with Nolan and Warners execs, who in recent weeks have talked to Darren Aronofsky, Ben Affleck, Matt Reeves and Tony Scott.
The job was so coveted that even Robert Zemeckis, retired to the world of performance capture, considered returning to live-action filmmaking in order to nab the gig.
A new Superman movie is one of the studio's top priorities, not only since it serves as linchpin for their line of DC superhero-based films, but especially since Warners needs to be in production on a new Superman movie by 2011 or risk losing certain copyrights to the heirs of creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Seigel. (That litigation is still pending.)
Nolan, who revived Batman, teamed up with David Goyer for a new a way to revive the last son of Krypton. Despite grossing $200 million domestically, the last movie, 2006's "Superman Returns," was considered a disappointment and a hoped-for franchise launch never flew off.
Part of the problem stems from Superman's non-comic book origins: The character for decades was a beacon for positive characteristics and his stories usually painted in black and white, so from a point of view of a certain segment, he was not hip enough for a time that prefers its heroes more morally ambiguous and drawn with tones of gray.
Goyer is writing the script, which is rumored to have, like "Superman Returns," a Richard Donner Superman connection. In the movie's case, it's a villain connection: General Zod.
Snyder is one of Warners favorite filmmakers, ever since he directed the surprise smash "300," the adaptation of the Frank Miller comic book. He followed that up with "Watchmen," the adaptation of the seminal Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons miniseries, and is now putting on the final touches on his original work "Suckerpunch," which is slated to open March 25, 2011.
Snyder just made his animated feature debut with "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole." The movie opened softly but is generating strong word-of-mouth, having fallen only 32% in its second week.
The great news here is that now I don't have to pay to see the movie, or spend 2 and a half hours of my time. I can just close my eyes and see exactly what this movie is going to be.
The writing and production elements make Snyder a wildcard. I don't know how much involvement he will or not have. Given his awful track record, I hope for less, but I have no idea.
Well, he's the director. He'll have a lot of involvement. And it's the writing and production elements that will be a little bit of a wild card (but not really, with Goyer and J. Nolan not really being terribly exciting writers, and by now we more or less know what Christopher Nolan can and can't do), but Snyder was clearly chosen by WB because he is the opposite of a wild card. Also, everybody involved has tread in superhero waters before, and we know what they like to do with it. I don't see any indication that this movie will be significantly different from what I picture it being when I stop to imagine it for 2 seconds.
From the WB's perspective, it's the least amount of risk-taking they could possibly do, considering how much money Nolan and Snyder have made for them (with superhero movies, no less). This is just a case of re-applying what was previously financially successful to what was previously financially successful. The result is going to be more of what we've already seen. But it's gonna make a lot of money.
What? This is the worst news. Fucking shit.
Quote from: matt35mm on October 04, 2010, 05:42:50 PM
And it's the writing and production elements that will be a little bit of a wild card
i think that's what GT was trying to say.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on October 04, 2010, 05:34:45 PM
The writing and production elements make Snyder a wildcard.
I focused on Snyder as a wild card because he is coming onboard a project that already has some development to it. Goyer's pitch for Superman is what sold Nolan and the studio to jump onboard. As far as I can tell, Snyder had more hand in the early development of his last few films. How much control he has here is up in the air. I have to assume if he's been hired by the team in place, for right now, everyone sees eye to eye. However, as the project develops, more decisions will be made and things could change.
And I was saying that I don't think Snyder is a wild card under any circumstance in any context in perpetuity. It's like Warner Bros wanted to make the number 15, and they were given the formula 11 + x = 15, and they knew that Zack Synder always equals 4, and they simply plugged Zack Snyder into the equation, knowing without a shadow of a doubt that 11 + Zack Snyder = 15. I am also saying that because I have seen the number 15 before, I can simply think of the number 15 and expect to have the same experience as I would if I watched this movie.
The writing and production team may be the closest thing this movie has to a wild card, but I honestly don't expect it to be all that wild. I don't think that Nolan will be heavily involved (as far as I can tell, he helped Goyer to shape the story and to shepherd the thing into production, but now he'll go and work on Batman and stay out of the way of Superman), and that Goyer will write the kind of scripts that he usually writes.
Man, I need to stop speculating on movies that I don't care about.
Yeah, same here. And you're probably right.
'Superman' Update: Story Details, Script Issues and Who the Studio Really Wanted as Director
By Simon Abrams; Cinematical
With the net now abuzz with talk about 'Dawn of the Dead' director Zack Snyder having been tapped to direct 'Superman: Man of Steel', the upcoming 'Superman' reboot, news is hitting fast about which director Warner Bros. really wanted before they eventually settled on Snyder.
New York Mag's Vulture blog reports that 'The Fountain' director Darren Aronofsky was nearly handed the job until he learned that the studio opted to go with Snyder. Aronofsky was reportedly very interested in the original idea for the project (the one we assume was pitched by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer) -- where Clark Kent has to decide whether or not he wants to be Superman while traveling the world as a journalist.
We're not sure how close that storyline is to what's currently on the page, or what will eventually hit screens, but it definitely sounds like a more modern take on the iconic superhero -- one that would allow room for current political events and an indecisive Superman who's desparately trying to contemplate whether he should step in or stay away and let people deal with their own problems.
Upon learning he wasn't going to land the gig, Aronofsky -- who, on paper, seems like a much better fit for this sort of material -- started eyeing other new projects, which apparently includes Marvel Studios' 'Wolverine 2' and the WB property 'Tales from the Gangster Squad', which Ben Affleck just recently turned down (he also turned down 'Superman' too).
What's interesting to note, however, is that according to Vulture's sources, part of the reason why Snyder was chosen was because Goyer's submitted script was "rushed" and more than a little sloppy, but delivered on time:
"We're told by knowledgeable insiders the reason Warner Bros. picked Snyder for Man of Steel is that the script by David Goyer was rushed, is still a bit of a mess, and that Warner Bros. needs someone who won't spend months or even years trying to get it just right (i.e., Aronofsky), because time is the one thing they don't have: The studio must have a new Superman movie in production by 2011 or they'll be subject to potential lawsuits by the heirs of the superhero's creators."
Unfortunately, that sounds like the studio said no to Aronofsky because he's a guy who likes to take his time on things in order to get it right. Warner Bros. seems like they want to get it right, though they're more concerned with getting it done ... on time, and perhaps all those delays and problems Aronofsky had on the big-budgeted 'Fountain' are still coming back to haunt him. Vulture goes on to say that Snyder was effectively the studio's shotgun choice, a high-profile guy they had to tap now simply because they wanted to get the ball rolling.
Henry Cavill Is 'Superman': Actor Lands Lead Role in Zack Snyder Reboot
Breaking News: Deadline is reporting that actor Henry Cavill has landed the coveted title role in Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures' 'Superman' reboot.
"In the pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the most recognized and revered character of all time, and I am honored to be a part of his return to the big screen. I also join Warner Bros., Legendary and the producers in saying how excited we are about the casting of Henry. He is the perfect choice to don the cape and S shield," said the film's director, Zack Snyder.
The film is also being produced by 'Inception' mastermind Christopher Nolan.
The 27-year-old British actor appeared in a number of movies in the last decade, from 'The Count of Monte Cristo,' to 'Stardust' to the Woody Allen movie 'Whatever Works.' TV fans will also know him for his role as Charles Brandon on the Showtime original series 'The Tudors.'
Cavill's upcoming roles include 'The Cold Light of Day' and 'Immortals.'
Quote from: Fernando on January 30, 2011, 01:51:45 PM
"In the pantheon of superheroes actors, Superman Henry Cavill is the most LEAST recognized and revered remembered character of all time,
OF ALL TIME.
seriously, maybe they should stop casting utterly dull nobodies as superman and maybe then they'd have a chance of resurrecting the franchise.
OF ALL FUCKING TIME.
Who is this jerk? He's been lobbying for the role since 2005 and I haven't heard of him until now. Did he put acting and working and making a living for his family on hold to try and get the role of Superman after he had already lost the role more than half a decade earlier? Dude, move on with your life.
This is the first time ever in the history of all time that this has actually worked. I bet his roommate is happy.
He's the Tudors knight guy or whatever, some hero. He's alright, at some point in the series he fucks a really hot french rebel.
Kevin Costner Confirmed For Pa Kent In Zack Snyder's 'Superman'
Source: The Playlist
Just a few weeks after it was first rumored, it looks like Clark Kent is getting a Dad. Deadline reports that a deal has closed for Kevin Costner to play Pa Kent in Zack Snyder's "Superman." He will join Diane Lane as Ma Kent, as they will play the parents to the Man Of Steel. But of course, this is just the tip of the casting iceberg. There is still Lois Lane to be cast (and a bevy of names have already been rumored for that role), Ursa (again, a number of names have been mentioned), and the biggest one of them all, Zod. While Viggo Mortensen was recently rumored, according to Deadline, it's not likely he'll take the part, especially if he signs on to "Snow White and the Huntsmen" which he was also recently linked to. But Mortensen as Zod would be frankly, pretty fantastic, so we hope that the actor carefully weighs his options here. For now, much of the details surrounding the reboot have been kept firmly under wraps with Snyder recently saying that his film would not follow or link to any of the previous movie versions. Of course, you know Henry Cavill will be wearing the iconic tights in the film that will hit theaters in December 2012.
Superman news: Amy Adams will be Lois Lane
Source: The Los Angeles Times
EXCLUSIVE This just in —three-time Oscar nominee Amy Adams will play journalist Lois Lane in Hollywood's revival of "Superman." The 36-year-old star got the news on Sunday from director Zack Snyder, who phoned her from Paris, where he was promoting his just-opened film, "Sucker Punch." There had been a crush of Hollywood interest in the lead female role in the Warner Bros. project but Snyder said that after meeting with Adams, she was the clear choice to take on a character that dates back to 1938 and has long represented the strong, professional woman who can hold her own against any man –even if he can leap tall buildings in a single bound.
"There was a big, giant search for Lois," Snyder said. "For us it was a big thing and obviously a really important role. We did a lot of auditioning but we had this meeting with Amy Adams and after that I just felt she was perfect for it."
Snyder declined to discuss the precise prominence of Lois in the story or any plot details about the film but he said the role is "a linchpin" to the project and that he considers it essential that Lois —an FDR-era creation –arrives on screen in 2012 with contemporary appeal and spirit.
"It goes back to what I've said about Superman and making him really understandable for today. What's important to us is making him relevant and real and making him empathetic to today's audience so that we understand the decisions he makes. That applies to Lois as well. She has to be in the same universe as him [in tone and substance]."
Adams has shown an affinity for finding the plucky but pitch-perfect center of old-school roles; in the cartoonish "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" she brought a surprising amount of yearning emotion to the role of a simplified Amelia Earhart and she won rave reviews for the role of Giselle in "Enchanted" and its sly send-up of Disney princess traditions that date back to "Snow White," which premiered just six months before Lois Lane hit newsstands in the pages of Action Comics No. 1.
Adams is coming off an Academy Award nomination for her work in "The Fighter," the David O. Russell film that took her into far darker territory; she played a bartender named Charlene who is fire-tested and fierce in her love for a down-but-not-out boxer portrayed by Mark Wahlberg. The film earned an Oscar win for Christian Bale, who played Wahlberg's deliriously drugged-out brother, and he will be in the other big superhero film of 2012, "The Dark Knight Rises," which will see Bale back in the cowl of Batman.
The big breakthrough for Adams was "Junebug," which premiered at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, where Adams won a special jury prize for her performance. The star's other notable credits include "Doubt," Julie & Julia," "Sunshine Cleaning," "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" and "Charlie Wilson's War." Later this year, she will be seen in both "On the Road" (an adaptation of the famed Jack Kerouac novel) and in Disney's new Muppets film.
I asked Snyder how it feels to be making a film where every casting choice is a global news flash. "It's an epic thing, no doubt. But this good news is the cast is shaping up to fit that." In the still-untitled Superman film, Henry Cavill will play Clark Kent and the Man of Steel. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are set to play the Kents, the adoptive parents of the last son of Krypton.
Michael Shannon Cast As General Zod In Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Now Officially Titled 'Man Of Steel'
Source: The Playlist
We'll be goddamned if Zack Snyder isn't doing everything in his power to scrub the ugly, ugly memory of "Sucker Punch" out of our minds. He's got a world of expectation on his shoulders for the upcoming "Superman" reboot but with each casting announcement, we can't help but get more and more excited for the film. Warner Bros. has announced that Michael Shannon has joined the upcoming film—now officially titled "Man Of Steel" (whether it has "Superman" in the title as a prefix remains unclear)—as General Zod. While Snyder himself said last year that early word of Zod being the villain in "Superman" was just a rumor, all signs have been pointing in that direction anyway with Viggo Mortensen being recently courted for the part. The character, a megalomaniac fellow-exile from Superman's home planet of Krypton, is one of the best-known of the classic adversaries, having been embodied memorably by Terence Stamp in 1980's "Superman II" (easily the best cinematic depiction of the series so far). But we can't think of a better bit of inspired casting than Shannon taking on the role. Snyder stated, "Zod is not only one of Superman's most formidable enemies, but one of the most significant because he has insights into Superman that others don't. Michael is a powerful actor who can project both the intelligence and the malice of the character, making him perfect for the role." With confirmation of the villain, fanboys will surely be wondering if perennial nemesis Lex Luthor also plays a role in the story penned by David S. Goyer and godfathered by producer Christopher Nolan. Recent, plausible sounding rumors pegged Metallo as the villain, but the Nolan camp has apparently been good at purposeful misinformation as well, so that storyline has likely been proven as a very false one. Shannon, known for electrical turns in "Revolutionary Road" (for which he was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar), and absurd ones (Werner Herzog's "My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?" joins a so-far impeccable cast that includes Henry Cavill as Clark Kent, Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent and Amy Adams as Lois Lane. "Superman" hits theaters in December 2012. Production is expected to begin in the fall.
michael shannon is on his way to become a Philip Seymour Hoffman figure. his face looks like he's been around since movies were invented.
Michael Shannon recently talked about getting Superman gig. 3 minute plus clip that is worth watching because he's candid and amusing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fx8MPa3fECA
and drunk!
Russell Crowe Eyes 'Superman' Movie
The actor is in negotiations to play the Kryptonian father in "Man of Steel."
Source: THR
Russell Crowe is negotiations to play the Kryptonian father of Superman in Man of Steel, the Zack Snyder-directed relaunch of Warners' Superman franchise. The casting of heavyweight Crowe in the role has a ring of synchronicity to it as it harkens back to the casting of heavyweight Marlon Brando in Warner's 1978 Superman movie. Brando was famously paid $16 million dollars for the part that amounted to 15 minutes of screen time. Details of how large the role (a scientist who forsees the destruction of his planet and squires his infant son into an escape rocket bound for Earth) is in Man of Steel are not being revealed. Steel already has Kevin Costner playing Jonathan Kent, the human father of Superman, who is being played by Henry Cavill. Christopher Nolan is producing the movie, which is heading for a late summer or fall start in Vancouver. Crowe, repped by WME, last starred in The Next Three Days. Sean Penn and Clive Owen were reportedly considered for the role.
Laurence Fishburne To Play Perry White In 'Man Of Steel'
Source: Playlist
Get ready for the worst geek hand-wringing and casual racism this side of the Idris Elba/ "Thor" embarrassment that cropped up a few months ago: EW reports that Laurence Fishburne has been cast as Perry White in Zack Snyder's forthcoming "Man of Steel."
Previously played by Jackie Cooper and Frank Langella in earlier iterations of the Superman movies, White is the demanding Editor-In-Chief of The Daily Planet where our humble Clark Kent works when he's not running around in tights. But he's a white guy in the comics! Yeah, who cares. Race doesn't play in this role, Fishburne is a great addition to the already solid cast and frankly, he's a solid fit the part of the newspaper man who wants the best out of his staff.
Fishburne has been a regular on "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" for the past three seasons, but recently left the show and has rebounded into movies quite nicely. So thumbs up on this bit of casting and really, across the board, "Man of Steel" has racked up a pretty great ensemble. Fishburne joins Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Antje Traue, Russell Crowe, Julia Ormond Harry Lennix and Christopher Meloni in the film that is already constructing sets for a fall shoot. "Man of Steel" flies into theaters on June 14, 2013.
More basketball skin:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbadassness.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fmanofsteelsupermanbig-568x378.jpg&hash=35983d6ef44cfb765cb2d8a2c1030fee68e0be6d)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbadassness.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fsupermanfeat-568x319.jpg&hash=f3e3862870f9c60f6bf6ee480961acc91cfc8be5)
Another style over substance fanboy comic book movie reboot only a few years after the last one.
Whoopety fucking doo.
Oh, dear god, I hope they include the origin story.
I had hope because of Nolan's involvement, but when they hired zack, I feared that we would see Sup flying eternally in slo-moe and the action polluted with cgi, I want to be wrong.
also, that is the fakest vault ive ever seen.
I see the iconic Superman spit-curl has been replaced by a giant bulging forehead-vein.
why is superman sweating
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fman-of-steel-poster-comic-con.jpg&hash=b28a9cbe689fdcad697ab3cb5ec02c995a17a02f)
Why does he have two smoke trails behind him?
One for each foot. He's wearing rocket boots.
Against all odds, this looks pretty great.
It really really does.
I third this motion.
Agree with all of you guys. I just hope Snyder can pull this off.
Into it. It inspired a little bit of awe.
I don't know if it's the music or the narration or the style in which it is shot but this trailer feels like Malick, or even a little like Gladiator.
Really looking forward to this now.
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 12, 2012, 11:06:32 AM
I don't know if it's the music or the narration or the style in which it is shot but this trailer feels like Malick, or even a little like Gladiator.
I personally don't see it. But it definitely looks more "artistic" than other super-hero movies (Yes, even more than the Nolan ones)... That shot where the camera is attached to the bus as it falls into the river is fucking superb.
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 12, 2012, 11:06:32 AM
I don't know if it's the music or the narration or the style in which it is shot but this trailer feels like Malick, or even a little like Gladiator.
I think that actually is the Gladiator score in the trailer.
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 12, 2012, 11:06:32 AM
I don't know if it's the music or the narration or the style in which it is shot but this trailer feels like Malick, or even a little like Gladiator.
Really looking forward to this now.
agreed if this is what the film actually feels like.
Halfway through the trailer I forgot what being cynical felt like.
Quote from: polkablues on April 16, 2013, 10:10:31 PM
Halfway through the trailer I forgot what being cynical felt like.
Costner, right? That does it for me.
I watched this a few times and then went back to the Superman Returns trailer... I can see what this is trying to break away from... I really hope it does it right.
Something about Costner and cornfields that's just meant to be.
So I just saw this on Facebook.
It's looks really exciting and action-packed but fear that the trilogy (because there will be a trilogy) will lack a sense of escalation. This looks so apocalyptic and explodey that they can really only go equal or smaller from here. I guess that's the risk of having a Superman movie. I mean it's not necessary to always go bigger and bolder but for an action film with superheroes it certainly makes sense to, otherwise the later threat may seem less significant in comparison.
I want to hold off anticipating what's next until after I actually see this movie. I think there are probably a ton of places they could take this which would be more epic in scope - after all, you're dealing with a character that has virtually unlimited power, why should the scale of future installments be dependent on the capabilities of the villain? I suspect it's all going to come down to the themes of this movie - and by extension the inevitable trilogy - that will determine how things will grow bigger in future installments. That, and the hopeful Justice League movie, of course.
Still looks great.
So did Prometheus, though.
Lower your expectations.
aw man. thats what people that haven't seen it have been telling me...thats no bueno
Yeah it's not terrible by any means but it's definitely got issues.
Empire's Review (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=137126)
Quote from: modage on June 12, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
Yeah it's not terrible by any means but it's definitely got issues.
I think it IS TERRIBLE. I can only attribute this to the success of Transformers and movies that have no real plot or a coherent, engaging story, but 2 hours of incredible effects and loud explosions. Except that for Superman, there's a lot of story and ways you can develop the characters so they seem more real and human. I think this was a huge wasted opportunity and as always I had such high expectations...
Superman should be fun(ny) god damnit. I've worried about the Nolanization of super hero movies. Inferior filmmakers want to make the next Dark Knight and they end up with a joyless, lumbering mass of a movie that takes itself way too seriously and is full of big set pieces that aren't really that fun nor do they make for any kind of coherent story.
I think that Zach Snyder made this too soon. I think he has a really good filmmaker in him wanting to get out, but he needs to fucking BREATHE.
There was some really well-done shit happening toward the front of this thing, but it was done at a pace that was so rushed to get to action scenes that lasted WAY TOO LONG!
There was a lot to like about this movie. I don't think it's terrible. I even think that the second one could be good. I just wish it would have taken some time and invested more in the characters. I don't need to watch Superman fight Zod for an hour and a half... I want to see Kevin Costner make my eyes wet.
C-Brad... I don't think that the problem is the movie taking itself too seriously... it opens with Russell Crowe riding a fucking dragon.
Oh I haven't seen it.
Classic.
zack snyder really wants you to know that superman and jesus have a lot in common.
this was shit. instead of actually doing anything remotely revisionist, they go nuts with inconsequential details (the dragon that russell crowe rides at the beginning HAS A FUCKING NAME) and wax poetic on the reading of superman offered in kill bill 2. it's a long fucking movie but because of pure ineptitude, nothing about it approaches narrative development or anything worthy of emotional investment. as it's been pointed out, it's all blowing smoke up your ass between action set pieces that directly contradict the ideology of superman. such MASSIVE destruction with NO regard for human life. and all the imagery in this movie is derivative to the point of nonsense.
henry cavill looks great as superman but his attempts at humanizing clark kent/kal el seem limited to pensive looks and weird bouts of yelling. michael shannon is predictably great as zod. i feel about diane lane the way everyone is praising kevin costner in this, which i think is the result of some strange connection white people are making between this and field of dreams.
This was a real bummer. I thought this would be the perfect Zach Snyder film that I've been waiting for (I really have been) but he didn't use any of his trademark touches (which would have been great in this context) and traded them for really awful Jesus metaphors and endless sequences of superbeings smashing concrete. On the plus side, it made me feel better about some of the clunky edits in my own movie.
SPOILERS
When Superman was debating whether or not to kill Zod, I kept thinking, "didn't you just kill half of Metropolis?"
In an earth-shattering collision of two of my favoritest podcasts, Glen Weldon (from Pop Culture Happy Hour (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129472378)) was interviewed in this week's episode (released today) of Slate's Culture Gabfest. He's also the author of Superman: The Unauthorized Biography, which came out recently.
I haven't seen Man of Steel, but this seems like a great interview (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/culturegabfest/2013/06/yeezus_man_of_steel_and_ambivalence_on_the_slate_culture_gabfest.html), discussing semi-Nolanization and such. It starts at 15:40...
Massive tangent. It's funny how Glen Weldon is so familiar with Slate's Culture Gabfest, yet none of them are familiar with his podcast, nor do they plug it at all, even though they seem to be (understandably) smitten with him. (He has to get in his ninja plug at the end.) It's not like PCHH is some obscure podcast... Slate's Culture Gabfest is ranked #123 in iTunes, but Pop Culture Happy Hour is ranked #27... above Dan Savage, Bill Maher, Car Talk, Harmontown, Doug Loves Movies, and our beloved How Did This Get Made.
Even funnier is that, years ago (https://twitter.com/ghweldon/status/5668022895), he called their podcast "a weekly 60/40 blend of the engaging/insufferable."
Yes, podcast discussion is now invading other threads.
Was it me, or did there seem to be a lot of things similar to Matrix? The babies in pods, the squid ships, takes flight like Neo, using Morpheus and Cmdr. Lock, etc.
The last act felt like the last act of Revolutions:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fwebroot%2Fanimatedgifs3%2F1704530_o.gif&hash=a86f979128bad98525deff9ea5173cf389ab267c)
Quote from: MacGuffin on June 22, 2013, 01:58:03 AM
Was it me, or did there seem to be a lot of things similar to Matrix? The babies in pods, the squid ships, takes flight like Neo, using Morpheus and Cmdr. Lock, etc.
The last act felt like the last act of Revolutions:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fwebroot%2Fanimatedgifs3%2F1704530_o.gif&hash=a86f979128bad98525deff9ea5173cf389ab267c)
Yeah when I first saw the pods the image of the Matrix fields popped into my head. I didn't hate Man of Steel but I didn't love it either. I thought the film had too many flashbacks to Clark's past. I dunno maybe the sequel will be better but I don't have the most faith in Snyder.
Quote from: ddiggler on June 19, 2013, 10:19:06 AM
SPOILERS
When Superman was debating whether or not to kill Zod, I kept thinking, "didn't you just kill half of Metropolis?"
Clark: What was I supposed to do, just let them die?
John: Maybe.
http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-man-of-steel-as-i-remem-516405346
^^ is that accurate? honest q. haven't seen the movie and not sure when/how i will. i read the above and laughed much, without being able to compare it to the movie
(a friend linked the above, if you're wondering 'why did he even read this?')(my friend considers it an accurate portrayal of his problems with the movie, but i don't want to ask him if that's what the movie is like, because i think he'd be annoyed that i haven't gone to see the movie)
Ever heard of a cook over salting his food to mask blandness? Snyder couldn't get out of his own way with this one. There are quiet moments of brilliance to be enjoyed. Superman the boy works. Loved the casting there. I can see a prequel happening. But 80% of the spectacle is a muddled bunch of nonsense and noise with no heart.
..and yet I'll pay to see the next one.
Well, I'm definitely in the minority on this one. While far from perfect, I pretty much unabashedly loved it from start to finish. I think it helps that I have no particular allegiance to the Donner film and its truly terrible sequels. I was ready for a new take on Superman, and it delivered on that. The stakes were high, the themes were grand, and there were only a handful of lines that made me groan, so major kudos for that.
Regarding the "Nolanization" of it all, I will always fall on the side of movies that take themselves seriously. The Avengers and all the Marvel movies are fun, but that's kind of all they are. As soon as they're over they disappear in a puff of air because there's no mass to them. There's a connectedness to reality that the Nolan Batmans and this movie have that the Marvel movies lack, and I think that's what I respond to about them in a way that I simply don't with Iron Man or Thor or whatever.
I have problems with this movie but agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph here. I think you have to take crazy pills not to at least appreciate the ambition of the Nolan movies over anything Marvel has done. Even with some flaws, there is just no comparison (not that they're even trying). Different leagues. I appreciate MOS for swinging for the fences but definitely think they screwed up some simple character/motivational stuff in the second half.
I think there's a difference between Nolanization and taking movies seriously. Applying the same general tone and approach to every movie, regardless of the demands of the story, is not taking it seriously.
This was awful. It felt like Emmerich film and that pretty much sums it up. I think script was constructed backward - there is so much stitching done by plot devices. Not even Michael Shannon could save it (that was the only reason I picked up it in first place and continued till the end). Not worth any further critique.