Source: AICN
Been getting some interesting confusing reports on SUPERMAN. Right now - it seems the story of SUPERMAN - the next Warner Brothers Effort - is in flux. They've got 4 candidates to be the big blue bird... Word is seeping around though that Brett Ratner has lost that loving feeeling for SUPERMAN and is heading into that - I shouldn't be doing this film area -- and Warners is beginning to think the same way. Meanwhile, Warners' first choice to direct SUPERMAN has always been Michael Bay - and the word is... He may, in fact, be ready to do it. Bay has been known for patriotic imagery and Norman Rockwell-ish sequences... and if there is a comic character that evokes that sort of feeling... It is SUPERMAN - although, I'm not gonna pretend for a second that you folks will be happy with that decision, if Warners makes it. And it'll take 2.1 seconds for some of you to put J. J. Abrams and Michael Bay together... draw the connecting dot to ARMAGEDDON and soon the foam will begin, and hatred will cause heat ripple effects from your brow...
Another speculating story here. (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14205)
Quote from: MacGuffinWord is seeping around though that Brett Ratner has lost that loving feeeling for SUPERMAN and is heading into that - I shouldn't be doing this film area -- and Warners is beginning to think the same way.
Any news against Brett Ratner is
good news! This makes me want to do one of two things.
A) Cream my pants!
(https://xixax.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/400c60c73e1c8748891cc.gif)
B) Praise the Lord!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn.org%2Fabout%2Fnewsletter%2F0301%2Fimages%2Fpaul_jan.jpg&hash=a3325f2b54b9b4a65fcb4e0acd0b2a260533b364)
Good, now I hope Ratner goes to make his own art house movie that he thinks will be a masterpiece, and I hope it fails both critically and at the box office. Then maybe he wont be so sure hes the next Kubrick.
Yes I am bitter.
Quote from: Duck SauceGood, now I hope Ratner goes to make his own art house movie that he thinks will be a masterpiece, and I hope it fails both critically and at the box office
mmmmmm... :twisted: ...
Quote from: mogwaiHe wants to do Rush Hour 3, the studio wants him to shoot part 3 and 4 back to back. Has New Line gone Lord of the Rings mad?
Yes!
Quote from: mogwaiHe wants to do Rush Hour 3, the studio wants him to shoot part 3 and 4 back to back. Has New Line gone Lord of the Rings mad?
I prefer Back to the Future II and III
With all the news going on whether or not Brett Ratner is directing SUPERMAN, and that Michael Bay was going to be the new director, and what that website said, and of course the Studio denying all this because thats what they got to do. NOW more news [bad news] of what's going on, Dark Horizons is reporting the following:
As of today, the Superman project is shutting down. The desks are emptying, the archives filling, and Superman is limping away to fight another day. Budget projections were in excess of $280 Million american dollars, and needless to say, trimming a budget down to a respectable $160 million simply can't be done without a complete retooling (i.e. a 260 million turd of a script will always be a 260 million turd of a script). The project isn't dead...but will shift back into development, with a new team, from the UPMs on down. In any case, Summer 2004 seems an impossibility.
Quote from: MacGuffinBudget projections were in excess of $280 Million american dollars.
WOW. I take it back, I say make it, I want to see how they will spend that much money. That is amazing, even if the movie is terrible at least it will be impressive in that sense. Its not like the studios would use it to fund anything good anyways.
I hope they never make it... I'm relieved they're shutting it down.
It shouldn't be done. There is no other Superman than Christopher Reeves for me (no, not even Steve Reeves).
The Last Son of Krypton reports that pre-production on the film has been shut down indefinitely because there is "no director, cast or usable script; therefore they can't make any progress." Rumors of Brett Ratner's departure have been swirling for weeks and Michael Bay seemed to be the frontrunner to replace him. But now, the report says Bay has officially passed saying he couldn't leave BAD BOYS 2 early to start filming and WB seems to have given up on getting him because his cost was too high (Bay wanted a high percentage of the Box Office gross on top of his fee). So what now? Ratner seems to have moved on to RUSH HOUR 3 while his departure and Bay's passing seems to have sent both Joel Silver and Josh Hartnett (the rumored frontrunner for the Caped Crusader) walking as well. Now a search has begun for a "major director" to replace Ratner with Tarsem (THE CELL), Antoine Fuqua (TRAINING DAY) and Dominic Sena (SWORDFISH) being rumored candidates. One thing that has remained the same is writer JJ Abrams who continues to rewrite the script trying to cut down the budget.
Yeah... great... that's just what we need... a very un-super actor and the director of Mr. Magoo.
That would be just fantastic.
Homer: "and in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic"
Tarsem is very interesting as being a candidate for the director role. I know a lot of people hated The Cell here, but I thought it was a brilliant film that operated at a level of high visuals but setting the visuals at just the perfect touch. I actually put The Cell as the second best movie for that year, behind Traffic. I wonder though, what he could do with his focus on high visuals to dictate the story in telling that of Superman.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTarsem is very interesting as being a candidate for the director role. I know a lot of people hated The Cell here, but I thought it was a brilliant film that operated at a level of high visuals but setting the visuals at just the perfect touch. I actually put The Cell as the second best movie for that year, behind Traffic. I wonder though, what he could do with his focus on high visuals to dictate the story in telling that of Superman.
~rougerum
Yeah, it would be neat to see what Tarsem does... but I can't really picture Superman to be an extremely visual movie. The Cell was much more surrealistic and another one of those "style over substance" movies.
Batman, I would see being a visually challenging movie to deal with. Not Superman. He's much more American Pie, Uncle Sam, Bald Eagle, Flag Waving kind of down-home superhero.
I agree with RK that Christopher Reeves and those movies will always be Superman.
Batman would be visually challenging to do because visuals of darkness have played very much into the personality of Batman. But, I'm more excited for what Tarsem could do with Superman instead because Superman is a character known for practicly being invincble so there is little room storywise. I think it would be the harder movie to do because I have always had the feeling, everything with Superman has been done and all they would do is just show him in action scenes and nonsense. I would love to see what Tarsem could bring in the way of imagination to one of the most unimaginative super hero.
~rougerum
Variety spoke to both Ratner and Bay about the rumors:
Michael Bay on directing Superman: "This is 100% false," Bay said. "I haven't spoken to anybody at Warner Bros. about 'Superman.' I have no idea how this rumor got started. Isn't Brett doing 'Superman'?"
Ratner on the whole rumor: "This is the most ridiculous rumor I've ever heard, and it starts with Web sites that have gone from supportive cinefiles to (being) gossip mongers," Ratner said. "The studio is spending multiple millions of dollars making test deals with the actors I want. They're paying me, my DP, my AD, my editor, my props guy."
Ratner on Superman's budget of over $200 million and about the candidates to play the role of Superman: "North of $200 million is a lie, we won't have a budget for three weeks," said Ratner, who acknowledged his top choices for Man of Steel were reluctant to make long-term pacts. "No star wants to sign that, but as much as I've told Jude [Law] and Josh [Hartnett] my vision for the movie, I've warned them of the consequences of being Superman. They'll live this character for 10 years because I'm telling one story over three movies and plan to direct all three if the first is as successful as everyone suspects."
Quote from: MacGuffinThey'll live this character for 10 years because I'm telling one story over three movies and plan to direct all three if the first is as successful as everyone suspects."
What a fuckin' disapointment... not only is he back on Sup, but he thinks he's gonna ruin 3 movies. That fucker.
it's all about the fucking trilogies. fuck.
I am kind of disapointed ,I really wanted to see them spend $200+ million on a movie. I say they do it.
why are they making another superman movie anyway? don't we already have smallville?
Quote from: bonanzatazwhy are they making another superman movie anyway? don't we already have smallville?
$$$[/color][/size]
Quote from: life_boy
Any news against Brett Ratner is good news! This makes me want to do one of two things.
A) Cream my pants!
(https://xixax.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/400c60c73e1c8748891cc.gif)
B) Praise the Lord!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn.org%2Fabout%2Fnewsletter%2F0301%2Fimages%2Fpaul_jan.jpg&hash=a3325f2b54b9b4a65fcb4e0acd0b2a260533b364)
Holly mother F'N shit! That was a great post! Big up to ya!
Quote from: Duck SauceI am kind of disapointed ,I really wanted to see them spend $200+ million on a movie. I say they do it.
To spend $200 million on a movie is ridiculous.
I'm thinking w/ the success of LOTR we are going to see a lot of big trilogy productions.
Quote from: cbrad4d
To spend $200 million on a movie is ridiculous.
I know, thats why I want to see them do it.
it would be nice to see some smaller trilogies. i like the trilogy format, but its always the bigger movies that get them. id really like to see someone do three movies dealing with like the story of a family over a few years or generations, or a series of films about the growth of one character. Or even a story told in two parts, that is planned that way from the beginning so to eliminate the 'sequel curse'. This kind of thing might work better with short films though, with these big internet premieres, so itd be cheap and epic at the same time.
Quote from: Lesterid really like to see someone do three movies dealing with like the story of a family over a few years or generations,
You mean the Godfather?
Quote from: Duck SauceQuote from: Lesterid really like to see someone do three movies dealing with like the story of a family over a few years or generations,
You mean the Godfather?
no, i mean like the film equivalent of Six Feet Under
Brett Ratner and Michael Bay just debunked the rumors that the latter may be replacing the former as director: Ratner told Variety, "This is the most ridiculous rumor I've ever heard. ... They would not jeopardize pissing me off by negotiating behind my back. I'd know." Bay says the rumor is "100% false." On another note, Ratner said that Ashton Kutcher's screen test was "very, very good." Yipes. (Dark Horizons)
What an arrogant little shit that man is. To quote George Carlin, "Fuck him. Fuck him up the ass with a big rubber dick. And then break it off and beat him with the rest of it."
Quote from: cbrad4d
What an arrogant little shit that man is. To quote George Carlin, "Fuck him. Fuck him up the ass with a big rubber dick. And then break it off and beat him with the rest of it."
My thoughts exactly.
Reported on imdb...
Stars Snub 'Superman'
It used to be a part young actors would die for but now finding the new Superman is a near impossible task. Rush Hour director Brett Ratner is having tremendous difficulty trying to find the perfect hunk to take over the role made famous by Christopher Reeve. Although rising stars Josh Hartnett and Jude Law have both signaled their interest in donning Superman's cape neither is willing to sign up for a trilogy of films. Ratner moans, "No star wants to sign that but as much as I've told Jude and Josh my vision for the movie, I've warned them of the consequences of being Superman. They'll live this character for 10 years."
You know there's no way that anyone he picks is going to be remembered as Superman over Reeves... it's just not happening.
That guy's not a very good director and doesn't really understand what makes a movie good. He can't turn anyone into Superman and the idea of a trilogy is a joke.
Victor Webster Top Contender for Superman
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latinoreview.com%2Fimages%2Fvictorwebster.jpg&hash=d63bb61279b2d769a0e37e76bf4aa85a6d2c104a)
According to Variety, 30-year-old Mutant X star Victor Webster is one the top contenders for Warner Bros.' Superman.
A former regular on the soap Days of Our Lives, the Canadian actor also has a tiny role in Bringing Down The House, the upcoming Disney comedy starring Steve Martin and Queen Latifah.
He's hardly a household name, but Warners liked his test, says the trade. More significantly, it also likes the fact that he's willing to sign up for two pre-negotiated sequels which has been a sticking point for some better-known actors, including Josh Hartnett, Jude Law, Brendan Fraser and Ashton Kutcher.
However, Webster needs to leap a few more tall buildings on the way to locking the gig, says Variety. Not only is the studio still testing actors, but Warners would really like a big name to put the "S" on his chest.
He reminds me of....
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.wpi.edu%2F%7Epsyci%2Fjohnstamos%2Ffrontstamos.gif&hash=2bea0db502494d56f63db54725e26eff888f0700)
I think it's the hair.
Quote from: MacGuffin Webster Top Contender for Superman
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grudge-match.com%2FImages%2FWebster.jpg&hash=92c3926d37c1d98b0593ed5936f73e71b9666120)
ok now im excited.
lol! HAHAHA!
Zentertainment reports that Lara Flynn Boyle is the frontrunner to play Lois Lane in Brett Ratner's "Superman" movie - "As it stands right now, Boyle is the strongest candidate to get the part" says their contact who is ahead of the likes of Lucy Liu, Catherine Zeta Jones, Julianna Margulies and Cameron Diaz for the part. Also Ratner considered but has turned down the idea of Gene Hackman returning to play Lex Luthor: "While he respects Hackman as an actor, he feels that the film needs some fresh blood in order to rejuvenate the long dead franchise. Another idea was to go with an unknown. Ratner liked this as well but he did not want to face the same backlash George Lucas faced when he cast Hayden Christensen as the future Darth Vader in Attack of the Clones last year".
So because Lucas casted a crappy actor that happened to be unknown, all unknown actors suck?
That's great theory.
Of course, Ratner's definition of "unknown" might differ from ours'. He liked the idea of going with the "unknown" actor Ralph Fiennes when he was casting Red Dragon.
Quote from: MacGuffinWhile he respects Hackman as an actor, he feels that the film needs some fresh blood in order to rejuvenate the long dead franchise.
Ratner makes such good decesions. Greatest director of his generation.
I sense a mega-flop in the works. I'm talking Godzilla meets Waterworld kind of flop.
Just out of curiosity, what's the biggest flop to date? Waterworld would be my guess...
One thing can keep this movie from making a ton of money, and thats bad press on it by the fan boy armies around the world. They get scripts, review them and post it on websites and the word is instantly out that 15% of the movie's audience is pissed because royalty (Superman) is being hacked away by a hack (Brett Ratner). Or a passable (bad, but not ridiculously bad) can be made and fan boys everywhere will proclaim it the true second coming.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetOne thing can keep this movie from making a ton of money, and thats bad press on it by the fan boy armies around the world.
And here's more:
Ratner casts himself as Superman!!!Click here to see. (http://www.comics2film.com/StoryFrame.php?f_id=2604)
with ratner, I believed it at first read but knew it was fake after and was glad to find out it was just that with the link. But prevail fan boy armies in destroying this project, prevail.
~rougerum
Although I'm generally not a fan of his movies, I think Superman and Michael Bay would be a match made in heaven. Bay's got the flag-waving patriotism down flat, and Superman IS the American hero. I mean at least he has that. What has Ratner ever contributed besides rolling the camera while Chris Tucker ad-libs some truly lame-ass dialogue, patches all that lame-ass shit together and produces a chuckle here-ooh, look at Jackie do all those far out moves while stuntmen wait around for their cues to fall down whenever he runs sideways on a bus' windows. Ratner. Ratner. And I hate his name too.
Quote from: Derekand Superman IS the American hero.
What about Captain America? :(
Captain America is a middling super-hero. Along the same lines of Daredevil but above The Punisher.
An anonymous scooper writes in to Latino Review about a possible Superman casting confirmation: "Apparently Brett Ratner is casting the role for the man of steel here in NYC, when all of a sudden who shows up but JOSH HARTNETT. Brett was amazed by his performance. Apparently impressed to the point where it's 99% certain that he will be the next man of steel!" The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed that Hartnett recently did a screen test.
Why doesn't he just do a Psycho remake with Chris Tucker as Norman?
Hartnett Rejects 'Superman' Deal
According to The Hollywood Reporter, it's back to the drawing board for Warner Bros. Pictures in its casting of "Superman".
Josh Hartnett, who tested for the project, has elected not to portray the Man of Steel, so a new trio of actors has emerged as top choices: Brendan Fraser, Paul Walker and newcomer Matthew Bomer, whose only credits include the daytime dramas "Guiding Light" and "All My Children."
Warners is trying to make test deals for the actors, with hopes of putting them in front of the camera sometime next week.
GO BRENDON FRASIER!!!
That would be great... it would ensure that these films are failures.
Quote from: RegularKarateGO BRENDON FRASIER!!!
That would be great... it would ensure that these films are failures.
I would like to see Superman a la George of the Jungle.
Can anyone point out to this n00b here why everyone hates Rattner? I think he did a bit above *OK* job in Red Dragon, although I cant picture him doing a Superman movie...
:?
i believe the motivation for the hate was from a multitude of things:
- his comments on pta and how he claimed his influences were transparent (ie 'i am cuba')
- his general attiude towards anything
- self-mockery in the pictures people take of him
the sphinx does not necessarily endorse these views, nor to these views reflect the sphinx in any way(s)
CNN's profile of Ratner includes this quote:
"When I see movies by people my age like Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes, I can tell you which scenes in older movies they referenced for specific shots, whether it's Robert Downey Sr. or Robert Altman," Ratner said. "I'm very good at copying. When I made 'Rush Hour,' '48 Hours,' 'Midnight Run' and 'Beverly Hills Cop' helped me decide what to do."
Similar comments can be found in the latest issue of Premiere magazine:
"I can do cool shots all day long, but it doesn't matter if it isn't driving the story forward," he says. "Tone is really my job, and I'm really good at copying - getting influenced by something. The only thing I can learn from is watching other movies. Speilberg and Scorsese's influences are from a different era, but mine are the same as, say, Paul Thomas Anderson's." He starts speaking faster, and then the glasses begin to rattle, his bouncing knees knocking against the underside of the table.
"When I see Boogie Nights, I know 95 percent of what inspired him - Putney Swoope, for instance, or I can say, 'That Stedicam shot was right out of I Am Cuba,' and I love that! It's like I was born to do what I'm doing!" He pauses, and then adds, "You know, I was always jealous of Paul because he was like, 'I hung out with Kubrick and I'm friends with Jonathan Demme,' and I said, 'One day, I'm going to make a credible movie, and those guys are going to be my friends.' And the first three calls I got from Rush Hour were from Warren Beatty, Jonathan Demme, and fucking Roman Polanski! Filmmakers are not judging the genre. If you make a good film, they respect that."
sounds like a bonafide tool :roll:
03/07/03
Producer Jon Peters is getting antsy about the time it's taking to cast the Man of Steel, and he reportedly took it out on director Brett Ratner during a heated conversation on the Warner Bros. lot, according to The New York Post. A source told the paper, "It was a closed-door meeting, but you could hear them screaming at each other inside the office. At one point, Peters started belittling Ratner. He said, 'Oh, you think you're a big man now?' It got so bad that someone had to separate them."
fight! fight! fight! fight!
The story also says Warner Bros. execs are bummed that Josh Harnett turned down the role, as Jude Law and Ashton Kutcher did before him. Brendan Fraser, Paul Walker, Hayden Christensen and soap opera Matthew Bomer are said to remain in the running, while sources said Justin Timberlake is being sought to play Superman sidekick Jimmy Olsen and Felicity star Keri Russell for the part of Lois Lane. (The New York Post)
god help us all.
This is just getting regoddamndiculous. Jerry O'Connell was quoted the other day saying that he is in the running as well. Jerry O'Connell!
They should just quietly halt pre production, find someone good and unknown, and take the time it takes to not risk becoming the laughing stock of millions of fans (again).
Superman May Lose Its Director
With no actor yet chosen to play the title role in Warner Bros. Pictures' Superman time may be running out for the production as director Brett Ratner's option to helm expired Saturday, says The Hollywood Reporter.
Contrary to previous reports, Ratner was never pay or play on the comic book adaptation. It remains to be seen if it will be renewed or if the studio will part ways with the helmer and start anew.
Meanwhile, Brendan Fraser and Matthew Bomer, both of whom tested for the role, remain in contention.
Shit, that means Ratner will be wanting to do some other movie.
Man, I just read this thread for the first time. It really is ridiculous. And here I thought Brett Ratner was an ok guy. I saw a few interviews with him and he seemed so humble, worried about whether people would like 'Red Dragon', but after reading the other interview stuff, I don't think I like him anymore. He does come off as arrogant, doesn't he?
I agree they should just dump the project. I mean 'Brendan Fraser'? What the hell is that? I know its not sure, but if they're considering actors that don't even look like Superman, you know its gonna suck. And throwing millions of dollars at it won't help. Look at 'Daredevil'.
Quick question about related DC Comics stuff: I heard something about Darren Aronofski writing a Batman script. Anyone know anything on that?
Quote from: RecceQuick question about related DC Comics stuff: I heard something about Darren Aronofski writing a Batman script. Anyone know anything on that?
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=238
Quote from: Recce
I agree they should just dump the project. I mean 'Brendan Fraser'? What the hell is that? I know its not sure, but if they're considering actors that don't even look like Superman, you know its gonna suck. And throwing millions of dollars at it won't help. Look at 'Daredevil'.
Quick question about related DC Comics stuff: I heard something about Darren Aronofski writing a Batman script. Anyone know anything on that?
I dont really care for this Superman other than hoping that Superman is not played by Brenden Fraiser, who I have never liked. He doesnt look enough like Superman, hes too dopey looking and would make this like one of his Dudley Do Right/ George of the Jungle movies to me.
Im sure Mac will come in with the links but the Aronofsky Batman thing is old news and apparently dead. Sad.
The Westmeath Examiner has a piece on who might playing Perry White in the new "Superman" movie:
"Steve Martin, whose new film "Bringing Down the House" has been atop of the box office in the United States for two consecutive weeks, is in talks to play Daily Planet newspaper editor, Perry White in the forthcoming "Superman" film".
"Reports suggest Martin, 57, met last week with the film's producers to discuss the role."
They go on to say his next film is a comedy for FOX called "Cheaper by the Dozen".
it's probably just a big cover-up. steve probably tested for the lead role.
why don't they actually get a young man to play the role, as opposed to brendan fraser, who's in his mid to late thirties? the whole thing i liked about spiderman is the whole :year one kinda stuff. i thought josh hartnett would be an o.k. choice...it's a difficult role though. action and light comedy at equal turns.
i did hear a rumour about jerry o'connell, who must be over thirty by now as well. he seems like an o.k. kind-a guy, if not overly talented or intelligent with career choices.
hearing all these superman ideas leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The only real superman in my book is Christopher Reeves. Can you imagine how fucking cheesy Brendan Fraser or Jerry O'Connell would look with the suit and cape flying in the air?
Quote from: cbrad4dhearing all these superman ideas leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The only real superman in my book is Christopher Reeves. Can you imagine how fucking cheesy Brendan Fraser or Jerry O'Connell would look with the suit and cape flying in the air?
Yeah, but Jude Law would kick ass.
Quote from: Derek
Yeah, but Jude Law would kick ass.
A British Superman? That would be like having Sam Elliot as the next Bond.
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: Derek
Yeah, but Jude Law would kick ass.
A British Superman? That would be like having Sam Elliot as the next Bond.
Oh, exactly like it, yeah.
Brett Ratner Leaves Superman for Rush Hour 3
According to Variety, Brett Ratner will no longer direct Superman for Warner Bros. Pictures. Ratner had previously agreed to make Rush Hour 3 at sister studio New Line Cinema who have just hired Bad Company scribe Jason Richman to write the script. New Line hopes to have a first draft from Richman in eight weeks and then to move forward with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan returning to the franchise.
The trade says Ratner released a statement late Wednesday. "I have chosen to withdraw as director of 'Superman.' The difficulty of casting the role of Superman has contributed to my decision. I appreciate the efforts of Warner Bros. and the entire production team during this process."
Warner Bros. has every interntion of moving forward with Superman, the studio says.
The final straw for Ratner appears to have been the unwillingness of studio executives to approve Ratner's choice as the Man of Steel, soap star Matthew Bomer. Among the actors who tested for the role were Brendan Fraser, Paul Walker and Josh Hartnett.
Ratner's transition to Rush Hour 3 isn't entirely seamless, adds the trade. While the director has already made his deal for the second sequel, the same can't be said for Tucker and Chan. New Line wants the stars to return.
Richman recently wrote a draft of Paramount Pictures' Beverly Hills Cop 4.
Looks like Richman's a regular shitty action screen writer. He probably has the perfect sensibility to match Ratner's mastery of craft. Should be intersting to see.
Here's the LSOK news update:
So Ratner is gone and guess who could be back on the movie? The man responsible for the vacuous but entertaining Charlie's Angels... McG!
McG isn't confirmed or anything so don't take word as gospel. He's just one of the main contenders for the director's chair.
McG has worked on it before and will give them the chance of making 2005. In a frightening BBC documentary about the making of Charlie's Angels last year, McG talked about the trouble he had with Bill Murray and how the producers and writers took creative control away from him due to heavy scheduling constraints. He seemed a guy who actually cared about what he was doing (or trying to do) and carried neither the arrogance nor ego of a certain Brett Ratner.
He's handled a movie in crisis and got through it. He knows the territory and the Superman project. The people at WB aren't completely alien to him. Sure they'd have to do more re-writes, production designs, hire new crew and start casting again but at least the delay would be minimized. Charlie's Angels wasn't Citizen Kane but it was probably the best Charlie's Angels movie we could have expected under the circumstances.
Anyway that's what's currently going round the Superman rumour-mill, may actually happen, may not – McG's agents denied he's been approached but that doesn't mean WB don't have him in mind. Remember he was the guy they wanted originally, only leaving due to his Charlie's Angels 2 commitment.
One last thing, Hartnett might be back as Superman, though it may be dependent on who the next director is.
Hard to imagine someone worst than Ratner doing it, but this latest development says it is can very well happen.
~rougerum
i like McG. Cool dude.
i do too. its nice to see a director like McG who's like a kid and has so much enthusiasm about making movies. I think with a half-decent script McG could do a great job with the Superman franchise. I don't see how anyone couldn't like Charlie's Angles. It's such a fun movie.
mcg's a cool guy, though im not an angels fan.
carry on...
i am so happy that mcg is getting props
will he be the next kubrick no but he will make fun action movies, i loved charlies angels and that film would of been a peice of shit without his touch
Sci-Fi Wire talked with Director Brett Ratner who revealed he's very keen on helming New Line's upcoming adaptation of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy which playwright Tom Stoppard is turning into a script. The fantasy tale follows a young girl who meets the likes of witches and talking bears whilst trying to rescue her best friend, Ratner says "There's not even a script, so it's a ways away, but New Line, the studio that I'm in business with, is developing it. I'm just hopeful".
On the new Red Dragon Director's Edition DVD, in the doc "A Director's Journey," Mr. Ratner talks to photographer Helmut Newton about wanting an exact photograph of himself just like the one taken of PTA for Vanity Fair (see below). What's amusing is that Mr. Newton doesn't seem to remember the photo or who PTA is.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ptanderson.com%2Fptaphotogallery%2Fimages%2Fpaul%2Fmagnolia%2Fvanityfair.jpg&hash=c18816d708fdf05657cd42915337dafcb7cd2f6f)
what a poser
The Last Full Measure for Brett Ratner
Director Brett Ratner, who recently dropped out of directing Warner Bros.' new Superman movie, has found his next project at New Line Cinema with Todd Robinson's The Last Full Measure. Variety says the film is expected to go into production this year.
Based on a true story, "Measure" is the story of a Washington insider who risks his future to ensure that a fallen airman receives the Medal of Honor.
Robinson, who wrote White Squall, is also negotiating to write and executive produce an untitled midseason CBS pilot for Sydney Pollack.
Ratner Would Rather Be Cool Than in a Rush?
New Line wants director Brett Ratner to do Rush Hour 3, but the difficulty in making talent deals with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan have him eyeing Be Cool, the MGM/Jersey sequel to Get Shorty.
Variety says a strong draft by Peter Steinfeld put that film back on the boards, but MGM will have to share with New Line if they want Ratner.
Be Cool suits him really... it was a sequel unworthy of the Elmore Leonard name.
I'm not sure of this, but after reading it (and a shitload other Elmore Leonard books), I got the feeling he was pressured to write this one.
It doesn't really fit. It's "what if Chili Palmer was into music instead of movies". It has a couple enjoyable parts, but overall, a very weak sequel.
Fitting that Ratner would be directing.
Quote from: cbrad4di do too. its nice to see a director like McG who's like a kid and has so much enthusiasm about making movies. I think with a half-decent script McG could do a great job with the Superman franchise. I don't see how anyone couldn't like Charlie's Angles. It's such a fun movie.
thats what i love about him, and he was the only reason charlies angels was not a out and out mess
we need people like him to make fun action movies that are not self important.
I don't understand the love for McG. Sure, he makes action films that do not take themselves seriously and I've been a major critic of action films that structurally rip off the porno movie and then say it has some great message at the end. Fuck that. McG though is not an answer to this problem nor a good thing. His major success with Charlie's Angels on such a big platform as in money spent to make it only gives Hollywood the leg room to feel comfortable in dishing more money out to these kinds of movies. If those movies make good money, then the comfortability extends into a rule where someone can come up with a shit script and put everything they know of how to kill or blow someone up and very likely get the movie made. The door has been closing quickly on Hollywood to return to a focus on writing good stories, albeit kinda cliche ones in contrast to the art films, but good writing nonetheless. That good writing bar of approval set standards for anyone wanting to get into the movies. Even if they wanted to make a commercial movie only, they had to think it out completely by way of writing a complete story and really push themsleves to challenge other screenplays that were about the writing. Sure, general complaints have always come up on Hollywood but that was with cliche stories of sort before, now ADD has set in on these studios and even that writing apsect is fucking extinct. So when I start hearing shit about how cool it is that some fucking moronic director admits his own stupidity through his work, then fucking kill me. I have no problem with the guy, I don't even care about him. What I care about is the level he is able to work at and how that can shift tides to make movies more on his level and squish the others out that seem questionable in not being able to operate for the 12 year old kid who calls breakfast-lunch-dinner just random moments of candy bars being stuffed down his fucking throat. Instead of creativity, this is action put up to such a dumb level that the only comparison can be made to is the kid trying to eat every fucking kind of candy bar in one day. People tell me he is cool because he doesn't take himself serious? Neither do pornos so lets all bow our heads and get into fucking worship mode. I've always liked good entertainment action movies. And I did say the word "good" in that last sentence.
~rougerum
Ratner is a tool. I saw some thing with him and michael jackson in car, and they were dancing to some shit r. kelly song. I laughed for hours
and McG makes music videos for Sugar Ray. That's all i need to say
//www.thestate22.com
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't understand the love for McG. Sure, he makes action films that do not take themselves seriously and I've been a major critic of action films that structurally rip off the porno movie and then say it has some great message at the end. Fuck that. McG though is not an answer to this problem nor a good thing. His major success with Charlie's Angels on such a big platform as in money spent to make it only gives Hollywood the leg room to feel comfortable in dishing more money out to these kinds of movies. If those movies make good money, then the comfortability extends into a rule where someone can come up with a shit script and put everything they know of how to kill or blow someone up and very likely get the movie made. The door has been closing quickly on Hollywood to return to a focus on writing good stories, albeit kinda cliche ones in contrast to the art films, but good writing nonetheless. That good writing bar of approval set standards for anyone wanting to get into the movies. Even if they wanted to make a commercial movie only, they had to think it out completely by way of writing a complete story and really push themsleves to challenge other screenplays that were about the writing. Sure, general complaints have always come up on Hollywood but that was with cliche stories of sort before, now ADD has set in on these studios and even that writing apsect is fucking extinct. So when I start hearing shit about how cool it is that some fucking moronic director admits his own stupidity through his work, then fucking kill me. I have no problem with the guy, I don't even care about him. What I care about is the level he is able to work at and how that can shift tides to make movies more on his level and squish the others out that seem questionable in not being able to operate for the 12 year old kid who calls breakfast-lunch-dinner just random moments of candy bars being stuffed down his fucking throat. Instead of creativity, this is action put up to such a dumb level that the only comparison can be made to is the kid trying to eat every fucking kind of candy bar in one day. People tell me he is cool because he doesn't take himself serious? Neither do pornos so lets all bow our heads and get into fucking worship mode. I've always liked good entertainment action movies. And I did say the word "good" in that last sentence.
~rougerum
I was thinking about saying that, but I knew you'd come along and say it better than I ever could have.
and Meatwad, I love your avatar
Beyond Riddlin
i coudnt find a place to post this so here
from Joblo.com
Don't shoot the messenger, folks...we just report whatever the news is out there...we don't have anything to do with the actual decision-making processes. Otherwise, Kevin Smith would be directing this puppy with Bruce Campbell as the ultimate Clark Kent. Having said that, the last time we spoke about the next SUPERMAN film's rumors, it was CHARLIE'S ANGELS director McG who was going to take over the ropes left sweaty by RUSH HOUR's Brett Ratner. But hold yer horses, as the ultimate of superhero movie sites, SuperheroHype.com is now reporting that producer Jon Peters might be leaving the film's development, only to be replaced by Jerry Weintraub, who himself would join director M. Night Shyamalan (yeah, that M. Night Shyamalan!) and actor Brendan Fraser (who was the bomb in ENCINO MAN!) as Supes himself. Is this 100% accurate? No, it isn't. It's a rumor that is currently being reported and seeing as folks on our website are stoked about this film, we thought you'd like to know. Do with it, what you will. More here. M. Night Shyamalan is currently in pre-production for his next feature entitled THE WOODS.
Actually, I think he would do a bang-up job.
yeah i like the idea of Night on Superman. I dont know if i like Brendan as clark kent. I say tell Depp to buff up and throw on the red and blue.
Barf Barf Barf... this movie would suck ass.
Superman/Wonderwoman: 'Turncoat' is back again with more on two DC Comic adaptations long in development over at Warner Bros - some old rumours confirmed/denied, along with some new ones brought up. "Superman" - "Still trying to find a cast [flash forward to Thanksgiving 2009...still casting]. As with Superman, there is about 5 candidates for the Lois Lane role at the moment. They are: Selma Blair ("Hellboy"), McG's friend Drew Barrymore, Claire Forlani ("The Medallion"), "Friends" starlet Courteney Cox, and "Buffy"/"Angel" babe Charisma Carpenter. I think they might be looking at Sydney for the shoot [this week]". "Wonder Woman" - "I think there's some movement which seems to be coming along nicely with Joel Silver still doing it and "Birds of Prey" creator Laeta Kalogridis penning. Early rumors of Sandra Bullock being roped into it again, also heard names like Ashley Scott and Eliza Duskhu as potential WW's. They're writing it really dark, and not campy, something along the lines of Batman and the new Catwoman. A 'name' male will co-star [they need a new franchise ...Catwoman sounds like it doesn't have the whiskers]". There's also some further Supes rumours up at AICN, more stuff about Brendan Fraser and talk of shooting in Sydney. With the film not heading out till about 2006, all this location talk is just that - talk. With US film production in Australia in the near future looking the bleakest it has been in years (about the only feature shooting here in the next few months is the Mask sequel), the room is available for the project but all this premature speculation may in fact harm the chances of it ending up Down Under.
There making a mask 2?
Quote from: BankyThere making a mask 2?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0362165/
Quote from: themodernage02They're writing it really dark, and not campy, something along the lines of Batman and the new Catwoman. A 'name' male will co-star [they need a new franchise ...Catwoman sounds like it doesn't have the whiskers]".
wonder woman is not dark. she is not batman. she is not catwoman. her name is freakin WONDER WOMAN for gods sake. theres nothing dark about that. who the fuck are these people?!?
So Jim Carey isnt in it ? thats some bullshit
Superman: The Wachowski Brothers are rumoured to be linked to the Supes project and might be penning a new draft.
Quote from: MacGuffinSuperman: The Wachowski Brothers are rumoured to be linked to the Supes project and might be penning a new draft.
I like that. They are better when dealing with fluff (Bound) than something that can be raped into thinking it has "higher meaning". Superman is as fluff as you get with superheroes.
~rougerum
Quote from: MacGuffinSuperman: The Wachowski Brothers are rumoured to be linked to the Supes project and might be penning a new draft.
:shock:
can i get a whoa?
as long as Keanu isn't Superman, I'm cool with that. (fuck you GT, Superman is important shit)
I suddenly realize that the Wachowskis are perfect for Superman, although they're going to have trouble topping themselves.
Quote from: RegularKarateas long as Keanu isn't Superman, I'm cool with that. (fuck you GT, Superman is important shit)
Haha. I can't take that serious.
Quote from: GhostboyI suddenly realize that the Wachowskis are perfect for Superman, although they're going to have trouble topping themselves.
I keep thinking about this, and I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Think about it some more once you've seen Revolutions.
Although Dark Horizons reported today that there's no truth to the rumor of their involvment. But if WB is smart, they'll convince them to do it.
Superman Punk'd? Jan. 19, 2004
Source: Superman-V.com by: Jim Law
Everything seems to be falling into place for a new SUPERMAN movie. The sweet website, Superman-V.com has all but officially announced that the new Man of Steel production will be moving to the Fox Studios in Sydney, Australia as soon as they're done with the filming of STEALTH. Click here for the entire article. Things are to start rolling in about three months, which would mean they might want some sort of a cast for director McG. That brings us to the true meaning of this story. Selma Blair has recently stated that she's "this close" to landing a key role in the new movie which probably means she's got her eyes on playing Lois Lane. Now for the funny. Ashton Kutcher has apparently thrown himself back into the mix for the role of Clark Kent/Superman. If this should even be considered, Ashton should start working out 13 years ago. This is like picking Calista Flockhart to play the lead in a movie about the life and times of Andre The Giant. I understand that with the right mix of steroids and latex muscles, we migh be able to see Ashton fill out the traditional blue and red spandex but how are we supposed to picture this guy as, arguably, the greatest superhero in history when nobody's even seen him with his hair combed? I like Ashton Kutcher for the way he made so many celebrities look like idiots on his MTV show, Punk'd, but Superman he's not. Maybe THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT will change my mind, then again, maybe not.
More Casting Rumors
joblo.com
You know that saying, don't shoot the messenger? Well in this instance, don't even talk to me. More rumors are starting to surface about casting for the next SUPERMAN movie and if you thought the one about Ashton Kutcher was funny, read on. Beyonce Knowles is the front runner for the role of Lois Lane and Johnny Depp is being highly considered for super-villain Lex Luthor. What does all this mean? It means the makers of this doomed production are trying anything in their power to build up some hype for a franchise that has been stuck in the mud since producer Jon Peters started opening his mouth. These "sources" I've been reading about are saying these are the actors the studio wants. Well, I want Ashley Judd to stop by at my birthday party in leather chaps and chew tobacco with me. Does that mean I should shine up the spittoon and ask the wife to go shopping? No. The question here is not whether Depp can pull off playing Luthor (the guy could play Jimmy Olsen, Lana Lang, and a piece of Kryptonite and still steal every f*cking scene in this movie), or if Beyonce will sing all of her lines into the camera with back-up dancers. The question is, why would the studio screw around with such iconic characters? And, why would Depp want to do this?
The 1978 Superman should still be considered one of, if not, the greatest comic book movies ever made. They too found some big names in Gene Hackman and Marlon Brando but to their defense, both actors were established in their art. While Depp might fit into this category, Kutcher and Knowles are just MTV eye candy thrown in to try and score popularity points. If these rumors have any sort of truth to them, and McG is still directing, get ready for a full blown, epic fan-boy revolt
Quote from: BankyBeyonce Knowles is the front runner for the role of Lois Lane
BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH!
My race hurts :(
I thought they had chosen Brendan Fraser for this a while ago... Hmmm...
I know you can't see me, but I'm crying right now
Natalie Portman 8)
im guessing these are all just rumors because they sound a bit over the top
courtesy: Wired News (//www.wired.com)
Will the Real Superman Please Stand Up?, Reeve in Talks
In a crowded press conference, Christopher Reeve announced he was in talks for the role of Superman in the new movie to be distributed by AOL Time Warner. Reeve had much dissent for the rumors of casting the lead role to MTV's "Punk'd" and "That Seventies Show" star Ashton Kutcher.
"I won't allow the heritage of the character of Superman to be dishonered by the likes of Kelso," Reeve announced. "He's the kryptonite to this project. Maybe they should cast him as Lex Luthor," Reeve stated as the audience giggled.
Kutcher angrily responded to Reeve's comments on the set of his hit MTV show, "Punk'd." "Christopher is like, what, 70 or 80 years old? I mean, I can lift almost a hundred pounds. That guy can't even get out of a wheelchair," Kutcher laughed.
"WB approached me because, y'know, they want to bring in a young audience. I'm still in talks. I'm still in the running," said Kutcher.
WB spokesman, Greg Nieber confirmed rumors of Reeve's casting considerations. "We've come a long way with technology, and CGI has been a huge success in Hollywood. We want to use this same success to let Chris reprise his role," Nieber stated.
"Ashton is a good choice because of demographics. But at the end of the day, people are going to want to see Chris up there on the screen. Let's face it: Chris will bring in the money and the sympathy vote," Nieber smirked.
"It's great to be back in the saddle," Reeve laughed. "No pun intended."
A:Quote from: wired
Will the Real Superman Please Stand Up?, Reeve in Talks
That's just mean
B:This is exactly what my friends and I have been wishing... no one can be Superman, but Reeves... he's fucking Superman. Technology is there, let's do it.
Quote from: PawbloeKutcher angrily responded to Reeve's comments on the set of his hit MTV show, "Punk'd." "Christopher is like, what, 70 or 80 years old? I mean, I can lift almost a hundred pounds. That guy can't even get out of a wheelchair," Kutcher laughed.
Quote from: RegularKarateThat's just mean
Ha ha! I wish I could work for "The Onion."
Okay, I swear I won't make up any more news. Cross my heart.
Unless it's really funny.
LATEST RUMOR: BRUCE WILLIS AS LEX LUTHOR IN THE NEW SUPERMAN MOVIE?
superman-v.com has an update about the upcoming "Superman" movie. Apparently their sources are claiming that BRUCE WILLIS have been approached to star in the film.
Superman-V.com even takes the logical step and predicts that the “bald” action star of Die Hard was likely offered the role of Superman’s main “bald” villain LEX LUTHOR.
SHH! reports that Johnny Depp may actually be up for Jor-El and not Lex Luthor after all. Meanwhile, Daily Star has picked up on rumours. They have Beyonce down as Lois (debunked by us), Depp as Luthor (read on for more Depp info) and Henry Cavill for Superman (he's THE contender at the moment).
A source expanded on these recent Superman rumours and dropped another name into the mix - Bruce Willis. They didn't know who Willis is up for but surely it can't be anyone else but Lex Luthor? With Willis' box office clout we could have a similiar situation as in 1978 with Richard Donner casting the then unknown Christopher Reeve.
"They'll give McG his choice for Superman but Warners will demand a couple of marquee names in prominent roles. They'll want a Brando and Hackman." When asked about Depp the source thought the rumour might have a kernel of truth, "The real surprise would be if Depp's name hasn't been brought up!"
What makes Willis sound that little more legit is his connections to the key players on the Superman project. He had a cameo in McG's Full Throttle, starred in the Jon Peters produced Bonfire of the Vanities and the JJ Abrams scripted Armageddon.
As we always do, we got in touch with Willis' reps at CAA. S-V asked has he read the script? Has he been approached? Is he in negotiations? Remember, this was from the same agency who totally debunked Beyonce as Lois.
"Nothing to report on this at this time."
A pretty open ended response, though not a flat out denial, as is the usual response from agencies when making these enquiries.
At this stage it's too early for anything to be signed and sealed. McG and WB are probably drawing up wish lists and nothing more.
Willis would rock as Luthor.
However, with McG still at the helm there is no hope for this movie. They need to go after big name actors that haven't seen Charlie's Angels.
oh, i get it he's bald. boy, they're really searching the ends of the earth to find the right casting.
Yes, he's bald. Completely overlook that the man is a great actor who can pull off menacing and intelligent easily and focus on his head.
Quote from: RaikusYes, he's bald. Completely overlook that the man is a great actor who can pull off menacing and intelligent easily and focus on his head.
:lol:
Beyoncé Knowles Confirms Superman Talks
Source: Superhero Hype!
You heard it first at Superhero Hype!, and now singer/actress Beyoncé Knowles herself has confirmed that she is up for the role of Lois Lane in Warner Bros.' new Superman adaptation, to which McG is attached to direct.
She tells Extra, "I hope so. Everyone pray that happens for me." We'll have to wait and see what the studio decides to do with the casting.
Superhero Hype! had also learned from the same source that Pirates of the Caribbean star Johnny Depp was being eyed for the role of Lex Luthor in the film. There's been no further confirmation of that at this point.
Quote from: MacGuffinShe tells Extra, "I hope so. Everyone pray that happens for me."
I'm sure that will be the first item on everyone's prayer list
"God, please let Beyonce get her shot as Lois Lane. You know You didn't give her enough acting chops for her to get it on her own merits, so reach down and give the casting directors a case of CJD or encephalitis. It may not be necessary based on their directing choice but let's not take any chances.
Oh, and help the people that are starving and dying and stuff. Amen."
Studio have their own ideas for Lois
Source: Moviehole
Beyonce Knowles might be McG’s first choice for the role of Lois Lane in “Superman”, but according to an insider I spoke to this morning he mightn’t get his way. The studio has their ideas too.
Among names being thrown about at the Brothers Warner Compound for the role : Australian actress Rose Byrne.
Byrne stars in Warner’s forthcoming “Troy” and word is she’s stellar in her small but pivotal part. No word if she’s actually in discussions yet, but apparently she is a contender.
Now, here’s a pic of Byrne. Aint she a better choice than Beyonce?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviehole.net%2Fimg%2Frosebyrnelois.jpg&hash=69dc2534be9a72e2b8f4097ae3c9e83e682ecb09)
that's a shit pic. she has a classic hot australian chick look.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbancinefile.com.au%2Fres%2Fimages%2Fr%2Frageinplacidlake3.jpg&hash=4e5a45fb68f1f1d17d766291a050bc07bd363a29)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therosebyrnesite.com%2Fvogue_03-04tn.jpg&hash=5923a13370f8d7f73d4d1d7c3182747a98c46eae)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.google.com.au%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AS_9wmgJFv3AJ%3Aau.geocities.com%2Ftrbsgallery%2Frose.jpg&hash=8a6747c50bd53d6bb36d5d1bd5936cdf6dc66673)
she would be awesome.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rodthai.com%2Fimages%2Finbox%2Fsuperman.jpg&hash=6b8d121d96e814013152dfc5621f49fd21cb3275)
From Mark Millar, acclaimed comic book writer about all this McG and Beyonce hullabaloo. Straight from his message boards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaaaaaaannndddd it all falls into place.
Trust me, McG is not getting anywhere NEAR this fucking thing. He (and others) are talking about this as a means of rejigging their careers. No actress is being seriously considered for Lois and nobody is being auditioned for Supes because there is NO MOVIE, folks. Here's the scoop...
The movie is already something like 50 mill in debt because of all the false-starts. It's a HUGE problem because they want big stars, big effects and a big budget and this would push you to the 250, 300 million mark. This ain't gonna happen, especially with someone as choppy as McG and that fucking awful script kicking around. A chum of mine, like I've said, has been making calls and taking meetings very quietly, has a few things he has to finish first and plans to get moving on this around 2006. Believe NONE of this bullshit you're reading because Beyonce, etc, etc, is just all pish. The real deal is still two years away from even seriously starting work on this so the flick isn't going to be seen until around 2007 at the earliest. There'll be possibly two Batman pics before the next Superman.
And I'm pleased about that.
Because it's going to be done right and be something we can watch for ANOTHER 25 years instead of some pop Charlie's Angels crap.
MM
Will SUPERMAN Fly Again? Director McG Hopes So
Source: Superman-V
Speculation has surrounded the idea of bringing Superman back to the big screen for quite some time and to keep up on the news Superman-V is the best place to go, and they have dropped a couple of new tidbits worth mentioning.
First off sources informed the site that director McG recently made a big presentation to Warner execs for his thoughts on the film including conceptual art, storyboards and set designs and reportedly received a positive reaction.
Just as well they squash the rumors that "Smallville" star Tom Welling is not in line for the lead role as the man-in-tights as McG wants to cast his own Superman, not use someone else's.
The site also reports that Jose Fernandez, the man responsible for the costumes for Batman Returns, Daredevil, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2 and most recently co-created the amazing looking 'Abe-Sapien' for Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy, is one of the main designers working for Kym Barrett.
man I hope they quit fucking around and make this movie... it would be so cool
I hope they quit fucking around and DON'T make this movie... it will suck.
Why fuck with the best superman... you can't improve on the first two films (unless you went back in time somehow and let Donner finish Sup II)
WB OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCES THE NEW SUPERMAN FX TEAM
Source: Variety
Variety reports that Warner Bros. has officially tapped ESC Entertainment to serve as the lead visual effects house for the new "Superman" film, being targeted for a summer 2006 release.
"Superman" is expected to be an effects-heavy tentpole, but because the pic has yet to be greenlit, it is unclear just how many shots ESC will be creating.
Either way, the job signals that ESC will keep its doors open through at least 2006, despite rumors that the shop would soon shutter -- talk that hasn't subsided since the company completed its work on "The Matrix" sequels for which the facility was created.
Warner Bros. has also brought on board effects vet Stan Winston to design a prototype of Superman's suit. Winston currently serves as a consultant on the project.
Studio is hoping to begin production on "Superman" sometime before the end of the year, with McG directing from a script by J.J. Abrams ("Alias").
Big Superman rumors! May. 25, 2004
Source: DarkHorizons by: Jim Law
Dark Horizons got some huge information on the upcoming revival of the SUPERMAN franchise via a scooper named The Smile Face Poster. Everything to do with this film is still speculation but man, Warner Bros should start believing the hype. Click here to read the whole article. You're gonna want to after you check out some of the details below.
"I finally got a word on the casting for McG's SUPERMAN. I will tell you this, and tell it to you first: Henry Cavill is Superman. This is the director's favorite and a majority of the fan's favorite also. Warner Bros. realizes this, and they also see how the casting of Christian Bale for Batman got high-ups from the fanbase. They want to do the same."
"Rose Bryne and Selma Blair are "this close" to getting the role of Lois Lane, and one of them will get it."
"While Topher Grace auditioned for the role of Jimmy Olsen, apparently it may (the key word is may) go to THE OC co-star Adam Brody."
"Now comes the main event. I can safely say that you can expect Johnny Depp to be the next Lex Luthor. That is, because he is the studio's favorite and McG wants to work with him. He's tied because he's not exactly sure if he wants to accept, and he also has CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY filming soon under the direction of Tim Burton. But WB and McG are really trying to nab Depp, since he turned out the most viable in his screentest (I heard it was "f**king amazing")."
please let McG die before he can make this film....
McG should explode..
Quote from: themodernage02please let McG die before he can make this film....
Quote from: A Matter Of ChanceMcG should explode..
Agree. A really good director is all it sounds like this project needs to be wonderful. And McG will totally fuck it up.
Since Depp is serioulsy being considered for the role of Lex Luther, that kind of makes me wish Burton would step back in and try to do it.
I can't believe this is happening! How dare that talentless freak touch the Man of Steel....inappropriately! No pun intended of course.....
According to AICN, via Michael Bay's website, Bay is going to direct Superman.
mcG, michael bay, and brett ratner all are the same person aren't they?
Quote from: jasper_windowAccording to AICN, via Michael Bay's website, Bay is going to direct Superman.
i hope this happens. superman is really not a character i'm that interested in, but i think bay will be perfect for it.
Quote from: petemcG, michael bay, and brett ratner all are the same person aren't they?
THAT would be awesome.
LaBeouf, Johansson & Depp Up for Superman?
Source: USA Today Friday, July 9, 2004
USA Today caught up with I, Robot star Shia LaBeouf at the film's premiere and he revealed interesting casting bits about Warner Bros.' new Superman movie, which the newspaper says will begin filming in November.
"I met with McG (the director) today and talked about Jimmy Olsen and who's going to be playing who," said LaBeouf. "The production's so locked down they said I can't even take the script home. I have to go to Warner Bros. (studio) to read it and then leave it there."
LaBeouf may not have left with a script, but he did leave with some intriguing casting info, the article says. Mainly, Jake Gyllenhaal is apparently no longer in the running for Superman.
"They're going to go with an unknown," said LaBeouf, adding that McG is trying to lure Scarlett Johansson for Lois Lane and Johnny Depp for Lex Luthor.
Director McG Officially Off of Superman
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Sunday, July 11, 2004
The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed the rumors and debunked what actor Shia LaBeouf said last week regarding casting...
Director McG is no longer attached to the next installment of Warner Bros. Pictures' "Superman." A Warners spokesperson confirmed that the studio and the director have amicably parted ways. The primary reason given was the inability of the two parties to agree over a budget. Casting also was an issue. Part of the conflict between the director and the studio was the shooting location. McG favored a New York shoot, while the studio favored Australia.
Stay tuned for who may be replacing McG.
Quote from: themodernage02Director McG Officially Off of Superman
Let us all rejoice!
Quote from: petemcG, michael bay, and brett ratner all are the same person aren't they?
Actually, if Michael Bay is represented as "a", McG as "b", and Ratner as "c"; and plug them into the quadratic formula:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sosmath.com%2Falgebra%2Ffactor%2Ffac08%2Fimg11.gif&hash=ce6f3ee69f35563a023e3e4dc8e6581f43731f37)
x can be figured out to be both Jan de Bont AND Simon West. Go figure.
Cute, but that's not the quadratic formula. Not your fault, that site looks rather craptacular at first glance.
/geek
Wait, WTF am I doing in the Superman thread anyway?
According to aintitcool, everybody's fired, all old concepts down the drain, and to rescue this potential trainwreck, Warner has brought in Bryan Singer (!) and his X2 writers! Can I post the entire article here, or will someone (aintitcool) get pissed?
we'll be pissed off if you post any blatant lies from ain't it cool.
The article. (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17972)
This is one of those things that's probably more than likely mostly true. I think the 'continuation' aspect is a great direction to take, and bringing on the X2 team is a sign that people at WB are developing brains, but I guess I've always just liked X-Men more than Superman, and I'd hate to see Bryan Singer pass up the chance to do the third one.
Quote from: Ghostboy//The%20article.
Ummm....you forgot the article.
That happens sometime when I type code early in the morning.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=4&u=/nm/20040719/en_nm/film_superman_dc
Humina, humina, humina.
As long as it doesn't interfere with X3's premiere, I'm more than happy getting Singer on Superman and waiting for Logan's Run. I can't wait to see how he makes Supes take on the giant spider...
'X-Men' Director to Take on Superman Franchise
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - "X-Men" director Bryan Singer has signed on to shoot the next Superman movie, replacing "Charlie's Angels" veteran McG, who dropped out a week ago over such issues as budget and location.
By signing on, Singer puts his next two high-profile projects in a gray zone. He was scheduled to direct "Logan's Run," and then return for a third shot at the comic-book franchise that propelled his career into the realm of big-budget tentpoles: Fox has already scheduled "X-Men 3" for a May 5, 2006 release.
There is no scheduled start date for Superman which, like "Logan's Run," is in development at Warner Bros. Superman's script is probably the most time-consuming element that will determine any production start. The previous script was written by "Alias" creator J.J. Abrams. Singer has a reputation for being very involved in the writing of his movies, as well as working with his own stable of writers.
Singer has long nursed a dream to direct a Superman movie.
"My interest in Superman dates back many, many years," he said. "In fact, it was the Richard Donner classic film that was my day-to-day inspiration in shaping the 'X-Men' universe for the screen. I feel that Superman has been late in his return and it is time for him to fly again."
Singer's other credits include "Apt Pupil" and "The Usual Suspects."
Besides McG, directors Tim Burton and Brett Ratner have also been involved with the resurrection of Warners' once-profitable franchise. The primary reason given for the exit of McG, ne Joseph McGinty Nichol, was the inability to agree on a budget, which reportedly hovers around $200 million, similar to what "Spider-Man 2" cost. Casting also was an issue, as was the shooting location. McG favored a New York shoot, while the studio favored Australia.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
There are reports Tom Welling has just signed on for some movie, on which he can't disclose any details, likely, it is Superman. Can't say I'm too thrilled about this, or the signing of Singer. Singer is an improvement over McG and Ratner, though.
Welling is on Superman overload
Superman Bosses Advertize for Unknown
Superman Returns producers have turned to the internet in a desperate bid to find a lead for the troubled production. Movie bosses behind the superhero sequel began their search for an actor to replace original star Christopher Reeve a year ago - and are now contemplating casting an unknown for the fifth Man Of Steel film. Top Hollywood names, including Jude Law and Keanu Reeves, have already rejected the role for fear of being typecast. Film-makers have now posted an advert on recruitment website Craigslist.Org in another drive to get cameras rolling on the much-delayed movie. The ad reads, "Late 20s, at least 6 foot, chiseled good looks, athletic, strong character, all-American, confident, yet awkward."
Caviezel Poised To Sign Superman Deal
The Passion Of The Christ star Jim Caviezel may be ready to sign a deal to star as Superman in the long-awaited new film Superman Returns. The hunky actor - who movingly portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial epic - is said to be very close to an agreement with studio Warner Bros. despite his agent's recent insistence the part had not yet been offered to him. Big name stars such as Jude Law, Josh Hartnett and Brendan Fraser have already been offered, and turned down, the role. However, according to respected comic book author Mark Miller, Caviezel's participation is all but guaranteed. He writes, "You remember I told you to relax about Superman? That a very, very trusted and experienced director we'd all love was coming over? That everything would be fine? Well, my same good buddy has informed me that Jim Caviezel is officially the new man of steel and what a perfect choice he is. Expect an announcement shortly."
I think Caviezel's a great choice, I just hope they don't turn this into another brooding superhero. Keep it light, along the lines of Donner's film because darkness and despair is Batman's territory, not Superman's.
I always thought superman should be more american and young though, like the littleville one. he was a good superman. you don't need to be a good actor or anything, just need to look wholesome and a little troubled. jim cavezel looks way too troubled and old.
***sung to the tune of John William's Superman Theme***
He flies through the sky, SUPERMAN
He's such a great guy, SUPERMAN
Across his big chest HE'S
Got a big 'S', HE'S
Such a great guy, Superman
His folks aren't his real DAD OR MOM
He comes from a planet CALLED KRYPTON
He picks up BUSSES
and never CUSSES
What a great guy, Superman
Caviezel, huh?
So now Superman will have permanent 5 o'clock shadow?
Quote from: MacGuffinCaviezel Poised To Sign Superman Deal
Perfect choice for me. Caviezel has the face for the role. His face reminds me of Henry Fonda's in that for certain roles, you see an actor who already has a look so expressive for warmth and emotion that he could get roles off that alone. Fonda was the only person who could have played Tom Joad and just off his role in The Thin Red Line, Caviezel feels like the only man right now for the job of Superman. Welling has a good look, but the younger it goes the more it feels like Superman Jr. (or something) and just doesn't live up to the granduer of Christopher Reeves who last had the role. At least try to equal it.
Superman should be about 35, Welling is way too young and boyish. Caviezel won't do it, and I hope they don't pull those lame jesus paralells out like the first movie did. I want a good Superman Story, not "Jesus: Space Age Adventures".
Does anybody else think that Caviezel is too tanned for the part? I think Superman should either be really pale, or straight up Black.
OOH, or Asian, cuz that would make an excellent Clark Kent.
Well, Dean Cane is half japanese. Closest you'll get..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv454%2Fkarasux%2Fs1goodhorse.jpg&hash=6dcf17887d37a6334ff42b2e705172112a38139f)
I heard Caviezel's off this. I'm not going to get too hyped or too down until there's more concrete news regarding this project, but I hope he does play the part. Any recent news?
Nice int. with Bryan Singer found at AICN, I only included Q's regarding flims (Superman, X-Men and others). Complete interview here (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18610).
Capone: Are you surprised that you got in front of an audience today and didn't get a single superhero question? It almost seemed like everyone here was here to watch a TV show.
B.S.: I think they were. It's certainly not like at the Comic Con.
Capone: Well, you won't be so lucky with me, my friend. Where do you stand right with casting SUPERMAN? Is it really going to be called SUPERMAN RETURNS?
B.S.: That's strictly a working title. But it is a return story. It puts the first films in a kind of vague history. So what it doesn't do is tread over the 1978 Richard Donner film, it doesn't tread over "Smallville." It elaborates on the existence of Superman in the world in a history. He's out of the culture and then he returns.
Capone: Will you be using footage from the other films?
B.S.: (Long pause) It's possible. There's an introduction sequence that may or may not involve something like that, but not in the way you might be thinking.
Capone: Is there any truth to the reports that you have a deadline to lock in the main cast or Warner Bros. will step in a do it for you?
B.S.: No, that's absurd. I read that too and think it's just bizarre about James Caviezel, who's a wonderful actor. But, no, I'm committed to casting an unknown.
Capone: So asking you what that unknown might be would be pointless, because we probably would not have heard of this person, right?
B.S.: Right.
Capone: Working on such high-profile projects that put you under the geek electron-microscope, is it a relief to be involved in the television project, where maybe the scrutiny is far less?
B.S.: Absolutely. Not that I mind that scrutiny because I am a geek. I am now, have always been, and forever shall be a geek, as James Cameron said once. This show allows me to shoot so much character dialogue and really takes me back to USUAL SUSPECTS days. That love doesn't always get satisfied on a feature, but this show satisfies that organ. When your life has become big-event superhero movies, and it will now be for several years, a respite like directing and defining a couple episodes of "House" is incredibly necessary. I don't like to take vacations, but this is a kind of vacation, a really pleasurable one. I'm really proud of the show.
Capone: Was it a tough decision to leave X-MEN at a point in the series where the plot for the next film, or at least part of the plot, was so clearly set up in X-2?
B.S.: I had a very strong vision for the next X-MEN picture. But SUPERMAN has always been a dream of mine. Things weren't moving as quickly as...it was difficult, and I love those actors and I have a strong relationship with the X-Men universe. I'm still taking over the writing of Ultimate X-Men for a year, so I'm by no means out of that universe. But I've had an idea for a SUPERMAN movie for many years, so for me the fact that it was available and Warner Bros. was willing to take everything it had spent 11 years developing with three other directors and throw it completely out and let me start from scratch at an accelerated level of time...once they showed the willingness, the desire and excitement to do that after my pitch, it became an obvious choice for me, but a difficult one.
Capone: Are you still committed, after SUPERMAN, to LOGAN'S RUN?
B.S.: My desire to do that film is so much so that I'm already pre-vizing [pre-visualizing] LOGAN'S RUN simultaneously while we're making SUPERMAN, so that by the time I'm done making SUPERMAN, I'll have LOGAN'S RUN completely pre-vized. I've already got five major sequences pre-vized, including Carousel. It's extraordinary, things you've never seen before. I'm usually that excited about something this far out, but if I showed you the pre-viz, I think you'd get a big kick out of it.
Capone: The real question is do you have your costume designer lined up for LOGAN'S RUN?
B.S.: As hard as it is to make sure you have a good and solid Superman suit, I think her greatest challenge will be the LOGAN'S RUN costumes. I told her that the other day actually. We had some artists do some preliminary designs to see if certain things are possible, but when she comes on board it's going to be interesting, especially in the world my LOGAN'S RUN takes place in, it's very strange.
Capone: Okay, enough with these lightweight questions. On to the real SUPERMAN dirt: will Jimmy Olsen be a young red head?
B.S.: [Laughing] I don't know how red his hair will be, but he will be a character in the film.
Capone: Certain people who shall remain nameless think red heads are the most discriminated group in movies.
B.S.: Yes, yes. I know. I'm going to ask Harry to let his hair grow a little longer so he can donate the clippings to the Jimmy Olsen wig.
Capone: Good idea. Okay, will the Fortress of Solitude be opened by a giant yellow key?
B.S.: No. Where did that come from?
Capone: It's an old comic book image, this giant oversized key that only Superman could lift.
B.S.: Don't tell Harry I didn't know what that meant. I think everyone will get a kick out of it. The Fortress will be in the film. Everything is. Some people say it's dated, but I'm very much a fan of the 1978 Donner film. That film, particularly it's first act, was a complete, day-to-day inspiration to the first X-MEN film for all of us. It's very exciting to do it. As for Dick, I'm a huge fan of his, to be able to try to protect some semblance of this character and not mess around with it. One reason I thought the Caviezel rumors were interesting is because I do believe that Superman is the Jesus of superheros.
Capone: Amen.
Caviezel Wants Superman Role
Jim Caviezel is struggling to land the lead role in the new Superman movie - because director Bryan Singer wants an unknown actor. The Passion Of The Christ heart-throb admits he is in talks to star in Superman Returns - but looks set to miss out because he's too famous. Caviezel tells American website IESB.Com, "It appeals to me a great deal, but I haven't seen a script yet. I like to play iconic characters, and I see the role of Superman as a big responsibility. Playing Superman would be a great challenge. I have had no direct, face-to-face talks with Bryan Singer. All talking has been done through mediators." But Singer recently told Ain't-it-cool.Com, "James Caviezel is a wonderful actor. But I'm committed to casting an unknown." Caviezel, meanwhile, knows if he manages to persuade Singer to change his mind, he could never outdo the original Superman, Christopher Reeve - who passed away on Sunday. He says, "Christopher Reeve is the greatest Superman ever in my mind. The original movies transcend what is common in film because they mix comedy and drama so well."
I hope he doesnt get it... I dont see it happening... I'm not sure if its the right thing but I wish Tom Welling would play Superman in the movie
Who cares about this movie anymore. It's the new Indiana Jones 4.
Superman Flies with No-Name?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.i1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmovies%2Fnews%2Feo%2F20041018%2F109815300000_2.jpg&hash=f9759e241000aff5d90168e6665cfc6b6979fbed)
Is a former player on the MTV soap Undressed about to get dressed up as the new big-screen Superman?
The studio isn't commenting; a movie news Website is--and it says it has the scoop on Brandon Routh.
Um, who's Brandon Routh...?
According to LatinoReview.com, Routh is the ex-Undressed man who's been tapped by director Bryan Singer to don cape and tights in the upcoming Superman movie.
Routh previously donned the Superman emblem, if not the cape and tights, last Halloween. This, also according to LatinoReview.com, which has the party picture to prove it.
On Monday, Warner Bros., the studio behind the Superman franchise, didn't deny the report. It didn't confirm it, either. Officially, it had "no comment."
The fan site Superman-V.com previously reported that Routh screen-tested for the part back when Charlie's Angels director McG was calling the shots. In August, it said Routh had been called back in by Singer, who came aboard after McG packed in his halo in July.
By Superman-V.com's count, Routh was one of six actors put in front of the camera by the Man of Steel-scouting McG. He was neither the biggest name of the bunch (that honor would go to Roswell's Jason Behr), nor the smallest (if nothing else, Routh's just as unknown as one Mike Vogel).
Oddly, after reputedly nixing onetime Superman director Brett Ratner's leading-man choice (Matthew Bomer) as too obscure, Warners has fixated on no-names to help restore its superhero series.
Routh's credits would seem to make him a perfect fit for the job. He's worked--an episode of Will & Grace last January, a bit on the Gilmore Girls three years ago, a 2001-02 stint on ABC soap One Life to Live, the aforementioned Undressed gig--he's just not famous.
The Iowa native turned 25 on Oct. 9. As LatinoReview.com pointed out, that's the same day Christopher Reeve, the last big-screen Superman, suffered the coma-inducing cardiac arrest that led to his death the next day at the age of 52.
On his Website, Ain't It Cool News' Harry Knowles speculates Warners is holding off on news of Routh's casting out of respect for Reeve and his unexpected death.
The Singer-directed Superman flick is slated for a summer 2006 release. Presumably, someone will have been officially cast by then.
I saw that today in Krypton site... its bullshit really... I cant believe that guy is Superman. If they were picking an unknown and so young I would definetly go with Tom Welling.
Quote from: andykIf they were picking an unknown and so young I would definetly go with Tom Welling.
Not so sure Tom Welling is an unknown as I believe he plays Clark Kent on a television show.. unless I'm thinking of another Tom Welling.
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: andykIf they were picking an unknown and so young I would definetly go with Tom Welling.
Not so sure Tom Welling is an unknown as I believe he plays Clark Kent on a television show.. unless I'm thinking of another Tom Welling.
Well he is an unknown to Hollywood and he hasnt done much in movies at all (only in Cheaper by the Dozen I think). Smallville viewers and fans know him but compared to Jim Caviezel or some of the other names they were talking about he is an unknown.
Its not me who said it, but the rumors over the past couple of months.
Who's playing Superman?
To quote my favorite comedian, during his most glorious bit ever:
"...No no, I'm sorry... the correct answer is: who gives a shit?"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howardstern.com%2F04%2F10%2F18%2F13b.jpg&hash=1c1aeade6cece69f4f280099dafa3c7081761d1d)
Anyone think Singer can come up with a tolerance theme for his Superman movie too?
:lol:
Quote from: andykI saw that today in Krypton site... its bullshit really... I cant believe that guy is Superman.
Believe it...
Little-Known Actor Cast As SupermanA little-known actor has been cast as Superman in a big-budget film slated for 2006, according to Variety magazine.
Brandon Routh, 25, of Norwalk, has appeared in the soap opera "One Life to Live" and just finished his first feature film, "Deadly."
He attended the University of Iowa and has had guest appearances on the television shows "Cold Case," "Gilmore Girls" and "Will and Grace." He also appeared on the third season of MTV's "Undressed."
Routh's father, Ron Routh, confirmed the Variety report but declined further comment because his son has not signed a contract.
He said he's been told publicity about the movie won't happen until after it's shot. "Their motive is to keep the mystique up," he said.
thats crazy... oh well... lets see what happens
lets hope this isnt a Hayden Christensen.
Well, not to be picky, but it's techically impossible for someone to be two persons at the same time.
Quote from: themodernage02lets hope this isnt a Hayden Christensen.
I use to think he was terrible with just seeing him in Star Wars, but after seeing Shattered Glass, he's actually quite good. Lucas looked for good talent and found it and then through his control, drained it.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: themodernage02lets hope this isnt a Hayden Christensen.
I use to think he was terrible with just seeing him in Star Wars, but after seeing Shattered Glass, he's actually quite good. Lucas looked for good talent and found it and then through his control, drained it.
I love you.
Let's just hope they do some creative things with this one. They did with the second Spiderman, so I'm pretty hopeful.
Quote from: Small Town LonerThey did with the second Spiderman, so I'm pretty hopeful.
"they" aren't making this one.
Typically giant ants aren't the greatest filmmakers in the world.
Did you ever see "Crossroads?" Yeah, that's not the best movie around.
Superman V is reporting that director Bryan Singer ("X-Men") is coming close to casting a villain in the upcoming "Superman" film. Who will square off against Brandon Routh in the first installment of the new man-of-steel franchise? UPDATE: Is there a "Superman VS Batman" in our future?
Rumor has it the first villain will be General Zod, played by Terrance Stamp ("The Limey") in "Superman 2." Jude Law ("Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") is the actor who is rumored to be in talks to play General Zod in Singer's update on the franchise.
If these rumors hold out--Spacey as Lex Luthor and Law as General Zod--this new unknown Superman may get lost in the A-list crowd.
Superman V is also reporting that they can confirm that Brandon Routh has signed a three-picture deal with Warner Brothers, which will involve at least two straight "Superman" films and possibly one "Batman/Superman" film. We may see Christian Bale and Brandon Routh in a movie together before this thing is through.
Quote from: andykUPDATE: Is there a "Superman VS Batman" in our future?
I hope not. The only Batman/Superman idea that would work is the "World's Finest" comic/cartoon. I bet they are just waiting to see how commercially successful the new Batman and Superman are before they start on a combined project. I really hope they don't bother. The characters are strong enough to stand on their own and develop their own stories (which has been proven already with prior Batman and Superman films).
Quote from: Gloria(which has been proven already with prior Batman and Superman films)
Not really...
Quote from: Withnail & GarfunkelNot really...
I thought the characters were fine on their own in the previous movies (when Batman movies added Robin/Batgirl is when they fell to peices). I just don't think they need to team up Batman and Superman when they are both strong characters with different followings.
Gloria, I like you. 8)
Quote from: andykSpacey as Lex Luthor
:shock: :laughing2:
I think the opening of Goldmember rules that rumor out...
Quote from: andyk
Superman V is also reporting that they can confirm that Brandon Routh has signed a three-picture deal with Warner Brothers, which will involve at least two straight "Superman" films and possibly one "Batman/Superman" film. We may see Christian Bale and Brandon Routh in a movie together before this thing is through.
who the hell is brandon routh?
Quote from: ©bradwho the hell is brandon routh?
One lucky son-of-a-bitch.
Quote from: ©bradwho the hell is brandon routh?
The guy that takes up most of Page 12.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.i1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmovies%2Fnews%2Feo%2F20041018%2F109815300000_2.jpg&hash=f9759e241000aff5d90168e6665cfc6b6979fbed)"Hi, my name is Brandon Routh. I am the male version of Anne Hathaway, look at me, Stefen is.
Quote from: Stefen(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.i1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmovies%2Fnews%2Feo%2F20041018%2F109815300000_2.jpg&hash=f9759e241000aff5d90168e6665cfc6b6979fbed)" I am the male version of Anne Hathaway.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lois, Lex Lock Into Superman
Source: Reuters
Superman has found his Lois Lane and his Lex Luthor.
Kate Bosworth is in negotiations to play the Man of Steel's plucky fellow reporter, and Kevin Spacey is set to play the superhero's nemesis in Bryan Singer's Superman movie for Warner Bros. Pictures.
The comic book movie would reunite the two actors, who currently appear in Spacey's "Beyond the Sea" as Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin.
The casting of Lane was a long process that ultimately rested on a chemistry test between the actress and Brandon Routh, who is playing Superman, sources said. Bosworth reportedly beat out the likes of Claire Danes, Linda Cardellini and Michelle Monaghan.
Sources said Singer wanted Spacey early on but that the Oscar-winning actor's commitment to London's Old Vic Theatre, where he is artistic director, caused scheduling snafus on the road to making a deal. Spacey, who is in rehearsals for "National Anthems" at the Old Vic, will do a limited run of "The Philadelphia Story" at the theater before moving to the Superman movie, which has a March start date.
I haven't been at all interested in this, but Spacey really is quite great for this role. Not Bosworth, though. Lois Lane is a brunette, first of all. What, are they gonna color her hair? (That's rhetorical.) Not gonna say anything about her acting -- she's decent, but I wouldn't have chosen her for this role myself -- Lois also has to convey smarts, and I would prefer someone who fits that Lois mold. Also, someone prone to random public outbursts of insanity.
Problem with Superman is he can do too much, and only has one weakness. It gets old fast, no matter how many variations on that they can play, from the comic, to the movies, and the Lois and Clark series (which was entertaining for what it was).
Marsden, Laurie Offering Super Support
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Director Bryan Singer is going with some familiar faces in his Superman movie.
James Marsden, who played Cyclops in Singer's two "X-Men" movies, and Hugh Laurie, who stars in Singer's Fox medical drama "House," are joining the cast of the Warner Bros. film.
Marsden, last in theaters with "The Notebook," will play Lois Lane's love interest, Richard White. Laurie is in final negotiations to play Perry White, editor in chief of the Daily Planet. The two characters are related, though the studio declined to say if they were father and son.
Brandon Routh is set to play Clark Kent/Superman, while Kevin Spacey, who won a supporting actor Oscar for his performance in Singer's "The Usual Suspects," is set to play Lex Luthor. Kate Bosworth, Spacey's co-star in "Beyond the Sea," is in negotiations to play Lane.
Marsden next appears in Sony Pictures Classics' "Heights," which debuts at the Sundance Film Festival this month. Laurie was recently in theaters with the "Flight of the Phoenix" remake.
Hugh Laurie looks more like a villain
Huntington files story as Jimmy Olsen
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Superman has found his sidekick. Sam Huntington ("Not Another Teen Movie") has been cast as Daily Planet cub reporter Jimmy Olsen in Bryan Singer's Superman movie. The cast includes Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, Hugh Laurie as Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White and James Marsden as Richard White. Kate Bosworth is in negotiations to play Lois Lane. Olsen was a wide-eyed photographer who even had a watch with a Superman signal. Olsen had his own comic in the 1960s and '70s titled "Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen." Since the late '80s, the comics have portrayed Olsen in a more serious light.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fcolumbia_pictures%2Fnot_another_teen_movie%2Fsam_huntington%2Fteen.jpg&hash=a2041c48edfdbbe7b4601500705b543ccf64fc08)
What the hell... I'm not liking this so much so far...
i think Singer should have stayed with X-men. I don't see Superman working out to much for him. Unless he kills of The Man of Steel which could be kinda cool. Idk
Saint Gets Maternal for Superman Pic
Eva Marie Saint will play Martha Kent, the adoptive mother of Clark Kent/Superman in Bryan Singer's Superman film for Warner Bros. Pictures.
Brandon Routh is playing Superman. Saint, who starred in the Alfred Hitchcock classic "North by Northwest," co-stars in Wayne Wang's "Because of Winn-Dixie," to be released by 20th Century Fox on Feb. 18, and will also appear in Wim Wenders' "Don't Come Knocking," to be released by Sony Pictures Classics in the fall.
Quote from: andykWhat the hell... I'm not liking this so much so far...
That's what everyone initially said about
X-Men, too.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: andykWhat the hell... I'm not liking this so much so far...
That's what everyone initially said about X-Men, too.
True... and dont get me wrong... I'm a huge Superman fan and I was happy about Singer being director... but after seeing most of his picks for the cast and the little things we know about the plot of the movie... I just dont see it being as cool as I expected it to be... I hope I'm wrong! :yabbse-undecided:
Quote from: andykQuote from: GhostboyQuote from: andykWhat the hell... I'm not liking this so much so far...
That's what everyone initially said about X-Men, too.
True... and dont get me wrong... I'm a huge Superman fan and I was happy about Singer being director... but after seeing most of his picks for the cast and the little things we know about the plot of the movie... I just dont see it being as cool as I expected it to be... I hope I'm wrong! :yabbse-undecided:
So far I'm only dissapointed by Kate Bosworth's cast, of course she can dye her hair black or whatever but there most be a dozen actresses out there that suit better than her, even unknown ones. I have faith in Singer though.
this will suck, but the sequel will be awesome.
Quote from: Pubrickthis will suck, but the sequel will be awesome.
Exactly... and then after watching the second, I'll consider watching the first one again, but just never get around to it.
I'm getting really tired of these remakes, sequels, book-to-screen adaptations. It's like Hollywood is desperately running out of original ideas so they have to keep remaking things to make money. That's one of the reasons I admire PTA, Charlie Kaufman, M. Night Shyamalan and some other screen-writers. They're truly some of the most creative minds in film today.
try watching foreign films.
Penn turns evil for Superman role
Kal Penn has joined the cast of Bryan Singer's Superman movie for Warner Bros. Pictures. Penn, who starred in "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle," will play Lex Luthor's right-hand man, a genius henchman named Stanford. Kevin Spacey is playing Luthor. Penn joins a cast that includes Brandon Routh as Superman, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, Hugh Laurie as Perry White, James Marsden as Richard White and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen. Producing the film are Jon Peters, Singer and Gilbert Adler. Penn gained attention for his comedic performance in "Van Wilder."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fdreamworks_skg%2Fthe_time_machine%2Fkal_penn%2Ftimepre.jpg&hash=ee722df5b38d476c0587ab6c9ffa6a287b6bc5e8)
Yyyyyessss!!! This movie is better already.
Quote from: matt35mmYyyyyessss!!! This movie is better already.
huh? i didn't hear you.. i was too busy breaking things in my house.
this will super SUCK.
Quote from: cinephile
this will super SUCK.
Clever?
Super clever.
But dude! He's perfect! He's Indian! Look at those naturally evil Indian eyebrows of his.
i think its a good idea to cast anybody whose hot right now, this film will be like a time capsule of this exact time. its a good idea.
Quote from: Stefeni think its a good idea to cast anybody whose hot right now, this film will be like a time capsule of this exact time. its a good idea.
I totally agree with this..
..and wow! How cool is Spacey is Lex Luther. Perfect!
I could have also seen Ben Kingsley in the role as well..
things continue to get weirder....
Marlon Brando is Jor-El in Superman :saywhat:
Source: Latino Review March 9, 2005
Latino Review has confirmed that director Bryan Singer plans on using stock footage of Marlon Brando that was originally shot by Superman director Richard Donner for Superman Returns. The character in the new film is expected to have a very minor role.
Brando and Christopher Reeve were once filmed interacting with one another to be used in Superman II, but due to a lawsuit against the Salkinds for a percentage of the sequel, the scenes were deleted and re-shot using the mother instead.
Brandon Routh stars in the title role. Warner Bros. will release the film in the summer of 2006. Brando passed away on July 1, 2004.
Posey to Play One of Superman's Foes
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Parker Posey has joined the cast of Bryan Singer's untitled Superman movie for Warner Bros. Pictures.
Posey will play Kitty Koslowski, Lex Luthor's villainous henchwoman.
Parker joins a cast that includes Brandon Routh as Superman, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, Hugh Laurie as Perry White, James Marsden as Richard White and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen.
Kevin Spacey is playing Lex Luthor. Kal Penn will portray Stanford, Luthor's right-hand man.
The script is by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris.
Posey, whose credits include "A Mighty Wind" and "Best in Show," was most recently seen in "Blade: Trinity" and "Laws of Attraction." She also is performing in "Hurlyburly" onstage in New York.
Quote from: MacGuffinPosey to Play One of Superman's Foes
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Parker Posey has joined the cast of Bryan Singer's untitled Superman movie for Warner Bros. Pictures.
Posey will play Kitty Koslowski, Lex Luthor's villainous henchwoman.
Parker joins a cast that includes Brandon Routh as Superman, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, Hugh Laurie as Perry White, James Marsden as Richard White and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen.
Kevin Spacey is playing Lex Luthor. Kal Penn will portray Stanford, Luthor's right-hand man.
The script is by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris.
Posey, whose credits include "A Mighty Wind" and "Best in Show," was most recently seen in "Blade: Trinity" and "Laws of Attraction." She also is performing in "Hurlyburly" onstage in New York.
AWESOME!!
Very cool. I had a chance to see "House of Yes" about a year ago and loved it. She's great in all of the Christopher Guest films as well. Great casting there..
Superman Returns Title Confirmed
Principal photography has finally commenced!
Warner Bros. has announced the long awaited start of principal photography on their new Man of Steel movie, now officially titled Superman Returns. Filming is underway in Sydney, Australia through mid-August for a June 30, 2006 release. Bryan Singer directs and co-produces along with Jon Peters and Gilbert Adler from a screenplay by Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris. Chris Lee serves as executive producer.
Newcomer Brandon Routh stars in the dual roles of Clark Kent and Superman. Kate Bosworth plays Lois Lane; Oscar-winner Kevin Spacey is the evil Lex Luthor; James Marsden plays Richard White; Eva Marie Saint is Martha Kent; and Sam Huntington is Jimmy Olsen. Luthor's underlings include Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski and Kal Penn as Stanford.
"We are thrilled to have such a stellar cast starring in this exciting and innovative new chapter in the Superman legend," said Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures. "With Bryan Singer at the helm, we look forward to creating a film that electrifies audiences and deepens the rich mythology that continues to make Superman one of the most popular and intriguing superheroes of all time."
"Rather than being a remake of the original movie," Singer said, "this film explores Superman's influence on our global culture and the impact of his return to Earth after an absence of several years. It's my great pleasure to bring this new chapter of the Superman legacy to the screen with this incredible cast."
Frank Langella Tapped as Superman's Boss
Actor Frank Langella, who once chilled moviegoers as Count Dracula, has stepped into the role of Superman's boss, Perry White, in Bryan Singer's upcoming comic book adventure "Superman Returns" for Warner Bros. Pictures.
Hugh Laurie originally was cast in the role but bowed out because of a scheduling conflict with the Fox television series on which he stars, "House."
The medical drama, on which Singer is executive producer, has proved a surprise hit and was just picked up for a second season. Laurie had not yet shot any scenes on the movie, which began production March 21 in Australia.
In the Superman canon, White is the editor of the Daily Planet, the newspaper where the Man of Steel's alter ego, Clark Kent, works as a mild-mannered reporter.
In Singer's version, White has a son named Richard, played by James Marsden, who is Lois Lane's love interest.
Quote from: Small Town LonerI'm getting really tired of these remakes, sequels, book-to-screen adaptations.That's one of the reasons I admire PTA
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how funny this statement has become.
Quote from: UncleJoeyQuote from: Small Town LonerI'm getting really tired of these remakes, sequels, book-to-screen adaptations.That's one of the reasons I admire PTA
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how funny this statement has become.
Wow, Small Town Loner. That statement is so funny! Ironic, too! :bravo:
She's always messing up.
...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aint-it-cool-news.com%2Fimages%2Fsr-clarkkent1.jpg&hash=93398ee702f445262cbb5e40b03ac5e841c42a21)
Quote from: EEz28(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aint-it-cool-news.com%2Fimages%2Fsr-clarkkent1.jpg&hash=93398ee702f445262cbb5e40b03ac5e841c42a21)
VIDEO (http://www.brandonrouth.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=44&pos=1) of Singer directing Brandon Routh as Clark Kent.
he looks just like christopher reeve in that picture, i think.
Better looking pics here
http://www.livejournal.com/users/afireinside32/93517.html
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fsuperman_returns%2Fbrandon_routh%2Fsuperman.jpg&hash=59592f906726e6267ea3e848f4201a0e32b01fca)
Hmm.
One word: crotch.
i think his suit is partially made of chocolate
He belongs on a parade float.
looks like he makes a better kent. or maybe its just a bad angle.
Quote from: A Matter Of Chance(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fsuperman_returns%2Fbrandon_routh%2Fsuperman.jpg&hash=59592f906726e6267ea3e848f4201a0e32b01fca)
Hmm.
no thank you.
I LOVE the original Superman and I'm (for the most part) disapointed that they're trying to do another one, but that costume is better than the original.
It's richer and the colors are right (that cap kind of sucks, I saw a much bigger, better one).
I'm still against this movie being made, but if it has to be made, this picture makes me feel a little better about it. The background makes me happy too.
You'd think people would have learned in the five years since the first X-Men photos were leaked to the web that initial pics of actors in costumes are never good representations of what they'll look like in the movie.
'Superman II': Take 2
Original ''Superman II'' movie gets revived by fans -- The new re-mastered version was put together from illegally recorded videotapes of an '80s TV broadcast
On the eve of a new Superman movie, is it too late to tinker with an old one? Long story short: In 1977, director Richard Donner began filming Superman and Superman II simultaneously, but after the first film premiered, Donner was let go. New director Richard Lester used some of Donner's scenes for the 1981 sequel — in which Zod and his gang of evil ABBA rejects try to take over the earth — but the movie infuriated fans, who demanded that Donner's vision be restored. Which it kind of was, in the '80s, when Warner Bros. put together an extended international TV version containing extra Donner footage.
Now — thanks to a team led by a man who refused to reveal his true identity to Entertainment Weekly — that broadcast has been reconstructed from videotapes (collected from fans worldwide) and packaged into the ''Restored International Cut,'' a DVD available for free through Superman Cinema ( www.supermancinema.co.uk ). ''It's not about me, it's about the film,'' the remastering bandit told us. ''When you get down to its core, it had a great story that even Richard Lester couldn't screw up.'' But isn't this whole thing sort of, you know, illegal? ''It's a violation of our copyright,'' responds an attorney for Warner Bros. Another Warner rep adds, ''Warner Home Video is known for listening to its fans. But taking somebody's property and doing what you want to it and giving it away is not the way to go.'' No arguments from our mystery man. ''We would all prefer to pay and get the footage properly,'' he says. ''I'm really asking them to make my project obsolete.''
The Skinny on Superman Returns
Everything we know so far. Source: IGN.FilmForce
Superman Returns to the big-screen on June 30, 2006, courtesy of Warner Brothers. The long-awaited (and long-in-development) Man of Steel movie has been filming in Sydney, Australia since March (through August) under the direction of Bryan Singer.
Singer also co-produces along with Jon Peters and Gilbert Adler from a screenplay by Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris. Chris Lee serves as executive producer. The director of photography is Newton Thomas Sigel A.S.C.; the production designer is Guy Dyas; the film is edited by John Ottman and Elliot Graham; the costume designer is Louise Mingenbach; and the music is by John Ottman. The film is based upon Superman characters created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster and published by DC Comics.
Newcomer Brandon Routh, a former bartender at the Lucky Strike bowling alley in Hollywood, stars in the dual roles of Clark Kent and Superman. The first official photo of him in costume as the Last Son of Krypton was released.
The rest of the cast includes Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane; two-time Oscar-winner Kevin Spacey as the evil Lex Luthor; James Marsden as Richard White; Eva Marie Saint as Martha Kent; Frank Langella as Perry White, and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen. Luthor's underlings include Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski and Kal Penn as Stanford. Noel Neill, the Lois Lane on the 1950s Superman TV series, has an unspecified cameo.
"We are thrilled to have such a stellar cast starring in this exciting and innovative new chapter in the Superman legend," said Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures, in a statement announcing the commencement of principal photography. "With Bryan Singer at the helm, we look forward to creating a film that electrifies audiences and deepens the rich mythology that continues to make Superman one of the most popular and intriguing superheroes of all time."
"Rather than being a remake of the original movie," Singer added, "this film explores Superman's influence on our global culture and the impact of his return to Earth after an absence of several years. It's my great pleasure to bring this new chapter of the Superman legacy to the screen with this incredible cast."
Today Warner Bros. released the official plot synopsis:
"Following a mysterious absence of several years, the Man of Steel comes back to Earth in the epic action-adventure Superman Returns, a soaring new chapter in the saga of one of the world's most beloved superheroes. While an old enemy plots to render him powerless once and for all, Superman faces the heartbreaking realization that the woman he loves, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life. Or has she? Superman's bittersweet return challenges him to bridge the distance between them while finding a place in a society that has learned to survive without him. In an attempt to protect the world he loves from cataclysmic destruction, Superman embarks on an epic journey of redemption that takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space."
There have been other rumored plot elements, such as the return of the Phantom Zone villains (possibly played by Jude Law and Famke Janssen) and literally the ghost of Marlon Brando's Jor-El, but those haven't panned out.
Singer is a huge fan of Richard Donner's 1978 Superman: The Movie and wants his film to be respectful of the series' established chronology, right down to keeping the distinctive star-shaped spaceship that baby Kal-El traveled in to Earth.
Singer's defection from X-Men 3 in favor of Superman reportedly ticked off 20th Century Fox so much that they nixed his deal with them. When James Marsden was cast as Richard White (said to be Perry White's nephew and Lois Lane's love interest), the rumor mill suggested that his character Cyclops would either be killed off in X-Men 3 or recast. Marsden will indeed be in X3 but in an even lesser role than he's had. Make of that what you will ...
Taking a page from King Kong and LOTR director Peter Jackson, Singer has reached out to fans online by posting regular behind-the-scenes video updates at BlueTights.net. Viewers have been able to see the Kent family farm set in Breeza, as well as stunt training.
And that's really all that's known about Superman Returns. As you can tell, the facts are pretty slim. Big questions remain unanswered: why did Superman leave Earth? How is the world endangered? What is Lex Luthor up to? Will he bald? And, most importantly, what ever happened to Otis and Miss Teschmacher?!
The answers to these and other lingering questions will be answered June 30, 2006 when, finally, Superman Returns.
There must be some badass CGI they're planning on doing, because it seems their sitting on it for almost a year. I know they want next summer, but geez.
My personal favorite.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationallampoon.com%2Fsupermanisadick%2Fimages%2Fdick%2F062.jpg&hash=44ca294af80dc00c8089014f1dc9a5969a03c2e6)
i love the caption on that cover.
Some great test footage and journal entries from http://www.bluetights.net/ for this film.
Looks like Bryan Singer has taken Superman to a whole new level of gayness.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv239%2FDreydin%2FSuperman.png&hash=518ef0abd5651219e507658e4ba62d3c7d11a7fd)
go back one page
'Superman' debuts Genesis
Warner Bros. Pictures' "Superman Returns" is taking a historic flight as the first movie to shoot with the Panavision Genesis digital cinematography cameras. Director Bryan Singer is filming with a fleet of the latest digital cinema cameras developed over a three-year period as a collaborative effort between Panavision and Sony. In creating the Genesis, Panavision, the storied Hollywood camera house, took some of the best attributes of its professional film cameras and adapted them for the digital world. At the heart of the Genesis is a Sony high-definition digital imaging device that allows use of all existing Panavision 35mm lenses with which most Hollywood motion picture film crews are very familiar.
Lex Luthor Has Hair!
A peek at Superman Returns.
Blue Tights was in attendance at the 2005 Licensing International show in New York City, which is where the studios go to sell entertainment licensing for their biggest releases. Warner Brothers had a booth there promoting Superman Returns and Blue Tights has the lowdown:
"In the WB area there was a very cool overhead display of comic book Superman saving a crashing truck, beneath which was rubble and a pair of glass doors with METROPOLIS emblazened across them. A brief turn around the corner and there was a giant pillar-type display of what appears to be the possible teaser poster for Superman Returns. Now I don't know 100% if this will be the actual teaser poster, as last year there was a similar display for Batman Begins with just the symbol and release date information below. However, this would make one helluva teaser poster, as our photos will illustrate."
Blue Tights has also posted this promotional art work (http://www.bluetights.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=0) from Superman Returns, which shows a bespectacled, brunette Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor ... with hair. While it could be that Lex wears a toupee, fans expecting a proudly bald Luthor will likely be disappointed.
all three of those photos are underwhelming. i like bosworth but i dont know if the brown hair is workin'.
Quote from: themodernage02all three of those photos are underwhelming. i like bosworth but i dont know if the brown hair is workin'.
The brown hair is definitely workin' for me... but not as much as the glasses are.
I'm hating Orlando Bloom right about now... but not as much as the idea of Luthor with hair.
this movie looks so cheesy right now.
Quote from: Stefen Posts Ghetto?this movie looks so cheesy right now.
did it ever not look cheesy?
he has a point
im fuckin hungry now..
swiss cheese is the best.
gouda is the best
Quote from: Myxomatosis
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv239%2FDreydin%2FSuperman.png&hash=518ef0abd5651219e507658e4ba62d3c7d11a7fd)
damn, this will be shit. if there is any one who is actually going to see this make sure you have LOW expectations or you will be let down. i like singer. but, i think that with just one look at the picture , its ridiculous. one reason is that IMHO, superman now is cheesy. the old ones are cool and still cool. but now-a-days this just seems ghey. seriously, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT LOSER IN THE PICTURE COULD PASS FOR SUPERMAN?....he looks like someone who would work at wal-mart selling the mobile phones....i could never get into that character........leave this franchise alone....
Quote from: NEON MERCURYDO YOU THINK THAT THAT LOSER IN THE PICTURE COULD PASS FOR SUPERMAN?....he looks like someone who would work at wal-mart selling the mobile phones....
I just pictured that... and in fact... you're right!
I love Superman... but I dont see how this will work
Simple Fact: The Superman costume transfers like shit into live action. It looks so horrendously bad, it's astounding. Redesign that damn thing like X-Men. Why doesn't Singer realize this? I thought he learned his lesson already.
Why not use this design?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicscontinuum.com%2Fstories%2F0311%2F22%2Fadventures625.jpg&hash=1c5bde8da71c8d3a00d4068adaa4aa45fe6144f2)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicscontinuum.com%2Fstories%2F0311%2F22%2Fsuperman202.jpg&hash=759a7a8515831e0a0529bb57663f80349bb7be1f)
because there are people who get mad when Lex Luthor has hair
i think they didn't use that design becuase that looks like shit - that poster looks suited for SUPERMAN ON ICE.
The problem is that Kevin Spacey without hair may look like Lex Luthor and make us all believe he is Lex Luthor... with hair... he is just Lester Burnham or Keyser Soze
I would have used all the characters of Smallville for this movie... they are not the best actors really, but for any Superman fan who watches the series they are the new face of all those characters... and in my own opinion I think they do a damn good job... problem with Smallville usually has more to do with the script and cheesy dialogue that makes it look like a Soap Opera.
I still love the show and Season 5 is gonna get better
Superman is a big boy scout and on the big screen he just looks goofy.
Quote from: cowboykurtisi think they didn't use that design becuase that looks like shit - that poster looks suited for SUPERMAN ON ICE.
Ironically, so does the original costume.
QuoteThe look of the film (thanks to this new Genesis HD camera) will look like REBECCA in color or a 1940's love story.
from AICN
Comic-Con 2005: Superman Returns
You will believe a man can fly... again.
These words echoed in my head after attending the Superman Returns panel at the San Diego Comic Con Saturday morning. I will admit I approached the panel with a degree of trepidation, since I was not sold on the film yet, based on the reports I had read. The Digital Bits panel at the convention on Thursday started to turn my opinion, after hearing Bryan Singer discuss his thoughts on the characters and seeing footage behind the sets.
Singer began Saturday's panel with questions and answers, as he was clearly and admittedly shaking off the effects of the flight from the Superman Returns set in Australia. The celebrated director said the reason it was important to fly to Comic-Con was that this is Superman. If it were an action/sci-fi film, it would be a different thing, but he felt this was something he had to do, considering the scope of it all.
First and foremost, Superman Returns is a love story, at its core. It's about what happens when old boyfriends come home.
The Superman comics that Singer enjoyed the most and served as inspiration points were works by Alex Ross. He also said the Fleischer cartoons and the 1978 film were important. Warner Brothers has been very supportive, and he said there would not be interference like on Superman II. He even agreed to ask Richard Donner again about the rumored Director's Cut of Superman II, and hopefully post information on BlueTights.net.
When asked about Clark Kent, Singer said that identity is the disguise, not Superman. He said there are really three personas, Clark Kent on the farm, bumbling Clark Kent at the Daily Planet and Kal-El, Last Son of Krypton.
As for the controversial costume, Singer pointed out there have been variations to the costume through all the incarnations, but his basis was George Reeves' suit. He knew he could not play with colors and patterns, like the X-Men. The size of the "S" was determined after getting Brandon Routh in the suit, and seeing it on him.
Then the real fun began -- A preview clip was screened. It opened with a shot of Smallville and the Kent Farm, with Jor-El and Lara's voiceover from Superman: The Movie, ending with Jor-El's line: "For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."
Then, it was kind of a blur, and I am going to admit I missed some of the stuff, as it moved quickly. There were shots of young Clark on the farm, Clark at the Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White and Lois Lane. As good as the Daily Planet looked in the behind the scenes footage from Thursday's panel, it looked even better when shown in the context of the film.
Clark is seen running down an alley, preparing to open his shirt to reveal the costume and seemingly take off in flight. There was a shot of what seemed to be Superman's reunion with Lois, ending with him taking off in flight, which was a "wow" type shot. At the tail end, Lex Luthor is revealed for the first time, holding one of the Kryptonian crystals. The preview ended with a shot of Supeman looking down upon the Earth before descending in the blink of an eye, evoking an image from the comic Superman: Peace on Earth.
Due to the tremendous ovation at the end, Singer requested the clip be shown again, to the delight of the crowd.
After the encore, the Q&A resumed.
Singer is using a Genesis digital camera to shoot the movie. He said the look of the film would be like Hitchcock's Rebecca, but in color. He was influenced in the design by late '30s and early '40s films.
As for the rumors regarding where Returns takes place in Superman movie continuity, Singer explained thatSuperman Returns plays off Superman: The Movie and vaguely references Superman II. Marlon Brando as Jor-El plays a small part, and was recreated with state of the art technology. Brando isn't the only thing being brought back from the original film. Although longtime collaborator John Ottman will be composing the score, John Williams' classic theme will be incorporated.
Singer contends that he maintains a great relationship with Marvel and DC. He would have loved to do X3, but the opportunity to direct Superman presented itself and he said he unfortunately did not have the ability to split himself in two and do both.
Of course, Returns isn't the only Superman gig in town. Singer met with Miles Millar and Alfred Gough from Smallville to compare notes. Neither project wanted to tread on the other's material, even if they are not directly connected.
Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor is not being written in a comedic style like the original films. Singer is instead aiming for a combination of humor and villainy.
When asked about the age of the characters being younger than the 1978 film even though Superman Returns is a sequel in spirit, Singer pointed out when casting the film, they needed to be mindful of potential sequels, and selected based on that. He suggested using suspension of disbelief. After all, if you can believe a man can fly, should getting a little younger be all that hard to swallow?
Obviously Superman has some personal meaning for Singer to have passed on X-Men 3. The director said he relates to Superman because he too is adopted, an only child and an American. He does not want to lose Superman's idealism in the story.
The Q&A session came to a close, the panel ended, but the hype is just beginning. I believe in Bryan Singer. June 30, 2006 cannot come quickly enough.
QuoteSinger is instead aiming for a combination of humor and villainy.
See, this is the stuff that worries me. I hate one liners, hate em, hate em, hate em. It's one of the things that turns me off from the Spiderman movies and basically all the comic book movies. It's already hard enough to take the films seriously cause they're in tights, but then you throw in these dumb comedic moments and it ruins it for me. Why can't they just play it straightforward?
Batman Begins may have done what I am talking about correctly but I'm not sure cause I haven't seen it. I can just picture that kid from Harold and Kumar fumbling around dropping things and cracking jokes with catchphrases. *superman stops a speeding bullet* "THAT'S HOT!"
I'm probably the only one. These movies make money, so I guess people don't want to take them seriously.
Quote from: Stefen
Batman Begins may have done what I am talking about correctly but I'm not sure cause I haven't seen it.
well, in batman begins it has the uber-cheesy line..."i got to get me one of these!".and when you see theactor who speaks this line ..you might faint..
COMIC-CON INTERNATIONAL: BRYAN SINGER PRESS CONFERENCE
SAN DIEGO -- Bryan Singer continued to be the darling of Comic-Con International, receiving a standing ovation from many in the crowd of 6,500 after show a clip montage from his upcoming Superman Returns on Saturday.
After the presentation, Singer, visibly tired from the flight from Australia, where the film is being shot, sat down with the media for a short press conference.
Following is an edited transcription:
Question: So how'd you like the reaction?
Singer: It was very nice. Very flattering. Very exciting.
Question:A lot of people seemed to have concerns with the suit.
Singer:Yeah, it's hard. You just see a photograph of it and it represents one thing. And people interpret it. It's just a photograph. But when you see it in motion and how we're treating him with lighting and color. And this was only our first pass at color timing. This little piece was done on the fly.
I think he sells it. If you were to meet Brandon (Routh) in the suit that's when you really feel, "OK, that's Superman. I get it."
I hope it will please people. You know, you can please some of the people some of the time.
Question:It was interesting what you said at the panel about how you relate to Superman. Can you expand on that?
Singer: Well, it was sort of what I said. I am adopted, I'm an America and I'm an only child. Superman was these three things, except what interests me is that he's the ultimate immigrant. And he carries what makes him different, his special heritage, he carries it with pride in the sense of suit.
He's very idealistic. Unlike Wolverine who is very cynical, Superman is extremely idealistic, and that kind of represents a bit of what America is, with the pitfalls one experiences in their idealism.
So I very much like the character. I find him very pleasant. I'd like to think that there were people like Superman, or aliens like Superman, that existed.
Plus, he can do anything.
Question:You mentioned that the John Williams theme will be used?
Singer: Yes.
Question: Will that play as the main theme and will he be in the credits?
Singer:Yes.
Question: Will the opening credits be the same as the Christopher Reeve films?
Singer: Similar. It will have some other elements to it, but it will be similar. In the spirit of.
Question:You talked about the Marlon Brando footage we're going to see. Is there any chance that will show up on the DVD?
Singer: I have no idea. It's definitely fascinating to look at. Like any movie, sometimes you, when you're filming, you get the words right and sometimes you don't. Then sometimes you talk about it. I don't know what would be appropriate and what wouldn't be appropriate to put on a DVD, and that would also probably come down to the rights issue, the estate rights of Marlon Brando. He have the rights to use elements and aspects of him as Jor-El.
But I don't know if I'm violating any rights by telling you the Brando bloopers, but they're definite fun. But when he's on, he's on. He's Jor-El. It's amazing.
Question: How do you prepare for directing a Superman film?
Singer: I direct two X-Men films. And I love Superman and have enough credibility, I guess, that Warner Bros. will trust me with what they consider one of their largest franchises.
Question: I heard you were having issues with Australia as a locating...
Singer: No, the only issues with Australia for me is the personal distance. My family lives in New Jersey and my home is in L.A. and God forbid something were to happen happen with my family, it's 22 hours of travel.
But so far the crew has been extraordinary. We've got a lot of people off King Kong, and we've got a lot of other folks off Star Wars and The Matrix. It's a terrific crew.
So for me, it's just a sense of a combination of a little home sickness. On a day, it will get to me. It's an intangible. Because the place is beautiful. Syndey's one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
Question: In the clip you showed downstairs, Lois Lane had a kid. How did Warner Bros. react?
Singer: I pitched the story (to Warner Bros. executives), and they responded to it. It comes to a conclusion. It's sort of a story about Superman finding his place in a world that has very much changed -- and ultimately he does at the end of the picture. It leaves some things open to future films possibly.
But they just responded to it quite instantaneously. As I said, my deal to make this movie was made in 72 hours.
Question: Will the success of Batman Begins made you look at Superman differently?
Singer: No, I don't see it. I don't think about other films and their success both financially and critically. I don't. I look at this film individually, completely separate from that.
I'm excited. It's good for Chris (Nolan), it's good for Warner Bros. and it's good for Batman, but it's not something I can factor into the movies I make one way or another.
Question: In the X-Men films, you dropped in little asides to comics fan. Is there anything like that in Superman?
Singer: Oh, absolutely. There's two cameos, Noel Neill and Jack Larsen, who played the original Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen from the 1950s series.
Question: He was the bartender in the clip?
Singer:Yeah, yeah, yeah, Jack Larsen plays the bartender with Jimmy Olsen in the scene, so it's great that they have a scene together. It was fun to shoot that
It was a very long day. Jack came there, flew 15 hours to get there and then worked an 18-hour day. He's not young, but he's got a lot of energy. I was really impressed.
Question: Can you tell us about casting Kate Bosworth?
Singer: I saw the movie Beyond the Sea -- twice. She phenomenal and I really liked her. I brought her to read with Brandon and they had a chemistry and it was the combination of her work on Beyond the Sea and the chemistry she had in the room with Brandon and the general sense I had in the meeting.
You know, when you meet somebody ... when I cast, and I've had a good record with casting, it's sort of in the meeting when I fully make that decision.
Question: Do you and Brandon watch Christopher Reeve?
Singer: No. We look at some of the original Superman, just to take a look at it together. But by no means did I ever say, "Act like Christopher Reeve."
It's weird with Brandon. One moment, he's a dead ringer for Christopher Reeve. The next minute, he's completely different. So it kind of captures moments. You'll have moments that recall the first film and then moments when he's his own Clark, and he's his own Superman.
Question: When you started filming, how far on the script were you? Did you have rewrites every day?
Singer: It was pretty far along, but my style is everyday, we invent something new. Everyday, I freak out and change something, which has a ripple effect of everything I'm going to shoot.
It happened just the other day. But it's always exciting and it's always for the best. It's a mixed bag. But that's why it's great having Dan and Mike there all the time. Because I can sit there and suddenly say, "Why am I doing this? This should happen." And they're right there to help me make in happen -- and visa versa.
Question: How much of the comic was the source material?
Singer: Very little. Little to none. It's mostly original material If you look back at the comic history, they've done pretty much about everything. Superman's rescued everything, picked up everything, thrown everything and captured everything and everything's bounced off him.
You have to see what serves the story that you're telling at the given moment. But there's definitely a respect to taking the overview of the series and an overview of the movies and an overview of the serial and an overview of the musical, which I've seen. Taking a piece of everything, and the comic of course in all its incarnations.
Question:Did you make Kate Bosworth wear same-color contact lens?
Singer: No. I like her different eyes. I find that interesting.
Question: Does is seem like Superman will be a homewrecker trying to win Lois back?
Singer:Not a homewrecker. It's just what happens when old boyfriends come back into your life. Something happens. And it's tough. They're not married, Lois and the (James) Marsden character are not married. You don't ask her about that question. Not Kate, but the character of Lois.
Question: Whose child is it?
Singer: It's hers and Richard's.
Question: But they're not married.
Singer: But, they're not married, no. It's a child out of wedlock. I know it's very racy (laughs).
Question: What was the biggest challenge in making Superman relevant to audiences of today?
Singer: Biggest creative challenge is just to make a good movie. I don't really care about the things about relevance of today. I don't particularly worry about where we are right now. Because where we are right now or what you consider today, will be different tomorrow. So I just particularly wanted to be respect to the Superman universe.
I think the one thing that makes it more modern is the fact that it is about what happens when old boyfriends come home and the world has moved on since Superman was the idealic young man who emerged from the Fortress of Solitude as Superman.
Question:How is Kevin Spacey playing Luthor, campy like Gene Hackman and more evil like Michael Rosenbaum?
Singer: I think you'll find that there's humor. I don't like the word campy. I don't think Gene Hackman was campy. I think Gene Hackman was phenomenal. One of end, but on the other end there was Otis and the way it unfolded there was a kind of humor. I'm exploring some of that humor, but at the same time he's proably going to be a bit darker, a bit edgier, somewhere in between what you're seeing on Smallville and what you're seeing in the first Superman.
Question: The humor comes with Kal Penn and Parker Posey?
Singer: Yeah, Parker Posey and Kal Penn and a group of thugs which are loosely based on the crime gang in musical, which had so little to do with this movie. Please don't say, "He's basing it on the musical." (laughs) Not that all, I'm just saying there's a bunch of these guys.
Question: Talk about your use of digital and the possibility of 3D conversion.
Singer: We've discussed an IMAX version. As far as a 3D version, I have to see the demonstrations of how to do that without shooting it that way. In theory, the real way to do 3D it shooting 3D, with appropriate ocular placements, two lens attached to the medium. Jim Cameron is shooting Battle Angel in 3D. He's shown me the camera; it's quite extraodinary.
...The film is being shot using with something called the Genesis camera. We're the first film to really utilize this camera. It was built from the ground up by Sony and Panavision to look more like film than any digital camera to date has done. It's quite fascinating. It's created quite an image.
Question: Your DVDs have always been great. What are you planning for the DVD?
Singer: Rob Burnett and his gang produce a pretty good DVD. They've been doing it with me since the re-release of The Usual Suspects, so they'll throw in whatever they think is relevant and fun. Then we do these weblogs, which are a little irreverent, mostly because I trust Rob and his team. I kind of trust these guys, so I let them get a lot of behind-the-scenes footage.
I hope they're more fun. I hope it's not, "This is a green screen. This is a camera. Here, we're going to do." They actually show that there's a cast of characters, not just in front of the camera, but behind the camera that are involved in making the picture. When you make a movie, it's a kind of a theater that occurs, the sets and the people. At any given day, I employ 800 people. By the finish of our run in Australia, we'll have employed 10,000 people, and that's not including the visual effects houses, thousands of people.
So to see a bit of that, particularly down in Australia where it's hard for you guys to come visit, it's great to be able to do on a DVD, to have that background, that material. And hopefully we'll be able to do it with some fun.
Question: Do you have a personal favorite version of Superman, perhaps when you were a child?
Singer: I think I did. It was a combination of the George Reeves series and then Richard Donner's 1978 Superman. Those are my biggest inspirations, I guess.
Question: The franchise is coming back after a long time. Can you talk about the pressure or responsibility you feel?
Singer: I feel an enormous responsiblity very simply because it's Superman. It's an icon that surpasses probably any comic icon and most icons that exist in popular culture. I guarantee you take the cross and the S into a jungle and you will have 50-50 recognition. It's an enormous responsiiblity.
Question: X-Men 2.5?
Singer: We've talked about it. Rob was talking to me about it. I'd participate, obviously, because I'm very proud of the X-Men films, particularly the second X-Men film. And it'd be fun to go back and look at it and talk about it and throw in some pieces and bits that haven't been seen.
Question: Will there be Superman-like action?
Singer: Oh, yeah. It's huge. That's why it's funny. I'm showing you a character piece, but the movie's huge. It probably has 1,500 to 2,000 visual effects shots. It's got sequences where you have not seen a character to do things of this scope. It takes you from outer space to the depths of the ocean. It's quite a big canvas.
Question: Does he use all his powers?
Singer: Oh, yeah. Most of them. Lots of them. We go lots of places.
Question: With X-Men, you have Marvel. With Superman, you have DC. Can you describe the difference?
Singer: There's no real difference. They're both companies that are passionate about their universes and hold them dear and are affording me a great amount of trust in the direction I'm taking.
I've been afforded, as with X-Men, tremendous control over the picture. It's all support. It's all good stuff.
We have a video game with EA, and I'm involved with that. That's spectacular. That will be quite a video game. It's for the next generation consoles. All that will be different. It will have elements of the movie, but it will have elements that will make game play more exciting in terms of the construction of Metropolis, Superman's powers and things like that.
Question: How comedically will you be playing the Clark Kent character?
Singer: He's goofy. He's playing a a role. Clark is not young Clark from the farm, although you'll see a bit of that. At the Daily Planet, he's awkward, he's the invisible guy. With Lois, "Have you ever been in love? Silly question." He's playing a role. That's his costume. Superman is him.
Question: Did you base Metropolis on New York City like Richard Donner did?
Singer: Richard Donner didn't base it loosely on New York City. He made it New York City. It was New York City.
We have a city that captures the look of the film, a 1940s love story, so there will be a more deco, things like that. But ultimately it will be based on something between today's New York and the New York of 1938.
Question: What do you think of Brett Ratner directing the third X-Men movie?
Singer: I think it's great. He's a good friends of mine; I've known him for years. And I'm excited for him. I hope he has enough time to make the picture.
Why, singer, why
i hope this hasn't been posted:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F482%2Fposters%2Fposter1.jpg&hash=5d320aaea1b4ee9b17ab9e9d07f6ceb03000f061)
Nice poster. It's kind of got that Alex Ross, "Kingdome Come" feel to it, to those who follow that sort of thing.
i think that woman makes it look like an ad for airfrance.
they should've made him look like a birdplane.
Good poster :yabbse-thumbup:
Nice use of perspective and something original (almost unheard of). I expected it to be a chrome 'S' with bevelling on a black background.
Quote from: cronopioi think that woman makes it look like an ad for airfrance.
Yeah, I don't like that either. It's like they knew the superman story was so white and photoshopped a black girl in at the last second.
You're probably right cause there are no black people in New York, I mean Metropolis.
Quote from: Pubrickthey should've made him look like a birdplane.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liebrand.nl%2Fli%2Fjpg%2Fbirdplanecolor.jpg&hash=1472d86456718464c0c19a0ae7df0eaf3328800a)
Lex Luthor Revealed
Set pix of Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey.
The Superman Homepage (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=1036) has posted the first images of Oscar winner Kevin Spacey in character as Lex Luthor in director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. Filming took place at a beach in North Narrabeen.
The spy pics shot by photographer Guy Finlay show a bald and burly Spacey wearing a very dapper white overcoat, black suit, blue shirt and white silk tie. He is also occasionally seen wearing a cap.
Luthor is on the beach with his henchwoman Kitty Koslowski, played by indie film fave and Blade: Trinity vet Posey. She is holding a dog. The photos don't really give you much of an idea of the gist of the scene.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supermanhomepage.com%2Fimages%2Fsuperman-returns2%2FLEXLUTHOR_ICON149.jpg&hash=6d85066bc4d2f78edf87c7841eb8d2f95e68ab50)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fsupermanreturns.jpg&hash=88e983f409fd9c42f896525f2f89cabf4c27eb28)
Quote from: modage(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fsupermanreturns.jpg&hash=88e983f409fd9c42f896525f2f89cabf4c27eb28)
Quote from: Raikus, commenting on the last teaser posterI expected it to be a chrome 'S' with bevelling on a black background.
Close.
It looks like something any of us could have made in Photoshop. But it's "classy because it's simple," I guess... :roll: which has become a bit of a cliché at this point.
But I really don't care.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F648%2F648611%2Fsuperman-returns-20050907113002822.jpg&hash=1f2dd273c6c100514d6122d7ea15e35e2c5ae50a)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F648%2F648611%2Fsuperman-returns-20050907113003931.jpg&hash=e1a48153a7559cc4bf00bc49449286703204b575)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F648%2F648611%2Fsuperman-returns-20050907113005649.jpg&hash=8d97d271060f344729aa7c264bf224c79fbbbfab)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F648%2F648611%2Fsuperman-returns-20050907113007462.jpg&hash=9b8c4ed606267fb7e02e67cf7670e5ac417dc655)
I swear to god, you could photoshop Max Fischer's face over Routh's in that last photo and no one would ever know the difference.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi17.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb59%2F72teeth%2Fsuperman-returns-20050907113003931.jpg&hash=ebedccf158a8132f944870df45585f43a445f9fd)
Is that Singer himself laying in there...cause napping on the job is not cool...
Yeah, that's him. The pics are from this Newsweek article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9189573/site/newsweek/
Quote from: 72teethIs that Singer himself laying in there...cause napping on the job is not cool...
Dude, you would be too if you were directing this huge, blockbuster movie and then jetting over and guest directing King Kong.
Quote from: GhostboyI swear to god, you could photoshop Max Fischer's face over Routh's in that last photo and no one would ever know the difference.
yes, he is a bit too convincing as clark kent and not as superman. he looks a bit like a superdork, james marsden seems like a better superman by comparison.
Superman Returns Official Site & Teaser
Source: Warner Bros. Pictures November 9, 2005
Warner Bros. Pictures has launched the official website for director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, opening in conventional theaters and IMAX on June 30, 2006.
At the site, you'll find the "Story," the cool new comic book layout of "Bryan's Video Journals," "Photos" from the film, many new "Downloads" such as Buddy Icons, Wallpapers and the Teaser Poster, as well as links to the latest "News" and "Email Updates".
ComingSoon.net has confirmed that the teaser trailer for the highly-anticipated film will be attached to Warner Bros. Pictures' Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, opening in theaters on Friday, November 18. The teaser runs one minute and thirty-three seconds.
Meanwhile, Warner Bros. will also debut the first trailer for writer/director M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water with "Goblet of Fire" in theaters. The clip clocks in at a minute and fifty seconds. The latest thriller from Shyamalan opens July 21, 2006 and stars Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, Freddy Rodriguez and Jeffrey Wright.
The trailer for the new Harrison Ford thriller Firewall will hit theaters with Fox's Walk the Line on the 18th as well. The Warner Bros. film, directed by Richard Loncraine and coming February 10, also stars Paul Bettany and Virginia Madsen.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/
a Teaser that runs over a minute... how much can they tease you?
They are starting to mix up the concept of a teaser, trailer, first look, etc... still want to see it... even though I'm not planning on seeing the new HP movie anytime soon!
Superman Returns Teaser Trailer Flies With "Solitude"
A WB promotion during Supernatural revealed that a trailer for next year's Superman Returns film (due out June 30, 2006) will run with Thursday night's (11/17) episode of Smallville.
Kevin Spacey Looks Badass!
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
Teaser is up!!!
Wow, I didn't give a shit about Superman or this movie or anything, but that trailer just sold me.
WOOOOOOOHOOO IM EXCITED!!!
I WANT TO SEE MORE... BUT IT WAS COOL AS SHIT... JOR EL IS THE BEST
*sniff*
all I really needed was that shot of the mailbox and that music.
Gosh! I mean My God, this is gonna be awseome.
All right. Taking our grudges out of the "Harry Potter" thread and into the appropriate area, here's the problem I have with this teaser. It's playing almost entirely on our collective fondness of Richard Donner's "Superman" movie, without even giving a hint of what the new movie brings to the table, besides updated FX and a dorkier Superman. I, too, get the warm-and-fuzzies when I hear Brando's voice-over, and see the shot of the mailbox with William's score behind it... because THEY'RE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL FILM!
Now I trust Singer as a filmmaker, and I expect I'll probably like this movie a lot. But it really bothers me that they're banking on our nostalgia to pique our interests, rather than showing us what new, great ideas they had for the character. A better title may have been "Superman Repeats".
And I'm sorry, but the shot of Superman floating in space looking down at the earth reminds me of that old commercial where the Indian cries when somebody litters. There, I said it.
Gotta say I agree with the polka.
Quote from: polkablues on November 19, 2005, 03:53:59 PM
All right. Taking our grudges out of the "Harry Potter" thread and into the appropriate area, here's the problem I have with this teaser. It's playing almost entirely on our collective fondness of Richard Donner's "Superman" movie, without even giving a hint of what the new movie brings to the table, besides updated FX and a dorkier Superman. I, too, get the warm-and-fuzzies when I hear Brando's voice-over, and see the shot of the mailbox with William's score behind it... because THEY'RE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL FILM!
That's why it's a great TEASER!!... this is a teaser, this is just a heads up and it works.
I don't expect the trailer to be like this and if it is, then I'll be disapointed.
I think people are viewing this as a trailer, that's not what it is.
Gotta say I agree with the rk.
Gotta say I agree with me.
I haven't seen the original Superman, mostly because I've never given a shit about Superman, he bores me. Truth, Justice, blah blah. I didn't even know that was Brando doing the voice over (where's he been anyway? </sarcasm>). So this trailer teaser worked for me without the fuzzy nostalgia.
Before 'Superman Returns', TV Documentary To Air
Director Bryan Singer has called upon documentary maker Kevin Burns -- not to be confused with fellow documentary maker Ken Burns -- to make a TV documentary about the origins and evolution of Superman. Burns has made a number of documentaries about Hollywood subjects, including Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood and Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. The plan is to complete the new film and put it on the air before the scheduled June 30, 2006 opening of Warner Brothers' Superman Returns, then to package it as an "extra" in the DVD package later in the year.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 17, 2005, 11:35:06 PM
*sniff*
all I really needed was that shot of the mailbox and that music.
no joke! gave me chills.
pumped i am.
Up, up ... and away
Superman may be quintessentially American, but it's cheaper to film him in Australia.
Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2005-12%2F21208424.jpg&hash=6cb104aae1622c5ffc1a6ea660fc9c02120fb415)
SYDNEY, Australia — To tell the tale of the greatest American superhero, the producers of "Superman Returns" brought six tons of lumber to a rural parcel on the Breeza Plains of Australia and built a Kansas farmhouse, windmill and an ox-blood red barn. They planted five acres of corn and paved six miles of road to reach their new Midwest homestead. And all of this because, for Hollywood filmmakers today, it makes more money sense to build Smallville USA on a different continent than it does to simply stay home.
"It is quite amazing isn't it? I suppose that's the way things are now," said Guy Hendrix Dyas the production designer for the film, which will reach theaters in June. "The place we found was in a really desolate area about an hour's flight from Sydney. We built an entire working farm. When we were done with the corn we fed it to the cows."
There is no bigger popcorn movie for 2006 than "Superman Returns," Warner Bros.' attempt to relaunch the grand old Man of Steel as a heroic 21st century franchise. And the film is all the bigger for having been made in Australia, where the U.S. dollar goes far and the talent pool runs deep. The country is consequently turning into one of the busiest overseas production hubs for Hollywood and perhaps its most user-friendly outpost. The "Superman Returns" budget has been widely reported to be $200 million or higher (studio insiders this week denied recent reports that the total actually went north of $250 million) but whatever the price tag, it will be reduced in the final calculation — government incentives in Australia add up to a 12.5% rebate on its final production costs. Then there are also the advantages of exchange rates and the largesse that Hollywood ventures enjoy (among them expedited permits and discounted hotel rooms) in a nation that has plenty of eager hospitality for visiting American big-spenders.
With the intense risk assessment that accompanies every blockbuster-budget film these days, the savings being offered by Australia (and New Zealand as well) has made it something of a bustling suburb of Hollywood — one that does, however, require a 17-hour commute. It also has the sun-intense weather, surfing and spiky attitude of personal expression that feel familiar to Angelenos.
While Hollywood productions that traipse into Eastern European nations or far-flung exotic Asian locales gamble on what they will find, in Australia and New Zealand they have an established and homegrown film industry (and one that has produced a glut of talented directors, among them Peter Jackson, Peter Weir, Baz Luhrmann, Phillip Noyce, Bruce Beresford and Jane Campion), no language barrier and a considerable amount of existing studio amenities. And then there are those financial breaks....
"The Australian government wants filmmakers and films here and it now has a corner of the business, a busy corner," said "Superman Returns" producer Gilbert Adler, in his office on the sprawling Fox Studios Australia lot in the suburbs of Sydney.
Outside his office are six huge soundstages, cluttered craft shops and wardrobe warehouses and administrative bungalows — all bustling with activity and set on a layout that would be familiar to anyone who has visited the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank.
Last summer, the lot also had a stunning, five-story Daily Planet façade ("It was too big to build inside a soundstage, so we built it to straddle the exteriors of two soundstages," Dyas said); a Fortress of Solitude; an elaborate set of a luxury yacht; a mansion; and assorted stand-ins for Metropolis and other Superman environs.
"This was the place that made the most sense for us and for the picture and it's really as simple as that," Adler said.
On the lot is also an animation house, Animal Logic, with one of the most massive amounts of computer memory under one roof anywhere in the world. That amount of computer muscle is needed to create the new-era animation projects, such as "Happy Feet," another Warner Bros. production that was underway over the summer and is due next fall.
Animal Logic is a visual effects house that has worked on projects such as "The Matrix: Reloaded," "Moulin Rouge!" and "The House of Flying Daggers." With "Happy Feet" — a playful animated musical adventure about penguins that features the voices of Hugh Jackman, Robin Williams and Nicole Kidman — the outfit hopes to catch industry attention by premiering a digital animation approach that brings a deeper realism to backgrounds, surface textures and lighting.
"The Pentagon and Animal Logic are both among the top five buildings in the world when it comes to computer power," said "Happy Feet" director George Miller ("The Witches of Eastwick," "Mad Max"), a Queensland native who said Australia's film artistry prowess has now dovetailed with a considerable amount of Hollywood commerce. "There is quite a bit of work being done here, obviously, and I think it will only increase."
Not everyone is happy with the southward migration of Hollywood productions. The idea of "Superman Returns," for example, a quintessentially American creation, taking flight in a foreign country has not set well with some observers. "Truth, Justice and the Australian Way" was the snide appraisal of the Film & Television Action Committee, a group active in the fight to stem the flow of film production away from the U.S.
There was also the public complaint of the director known as McG, who had been set at one point to work on the film. He left the production for several reasons, one of them the shooting site. In a statement issued when he parted ways with the project, he said the hero belonged on an American skyline: "When I flew to New York to scout, I became enamored with our greatest American city. It was clear to me that this was Metropolis. As a filmmaker, I felt it was inappropriate to try to capture the heart of America on another continent."
Producers of the movie have responded that McG's self-acknowledged fear of flying over bodies of water had more to do with his departure from the project than any sense of sanctity regarding Superman's iconography. But either way, the split highlights some of the downsides of working on a studio lot on the other side of the globe. For most projects, however, the upsides are far more compelling.
The "Lord of the Rings" films, the "Matrix" franchise, the most recent "Star Wars" trilogy, "King Kong," "Peter Pan," "Ghost Rider," "Charlotte's Web," "House of Wax," "Scooby-Doo" and "Stealth" are just some of the recent mainstream Hollywood product made in Australia or New Zealand. All were wooed by aggressive government deals that pull in productions to add amperage to the local economy.
An abstract by the New South Wales Department of State Development, for example, reports that "Superman Returns" injected some $80 million into the local economy, created 800 local jobs and employed as many 10,000 people as it shot on 60 sets on nine stages over eight months. A crowing minister told the Sydney press in November that the movie will be "more powerful than a locomotive at the box office" but that it's "already proven a winner" for the Sydney area.
For the cast and crew who live in Los Angeles and fly down for extended work stays in Australia, the locale and infrastructure make for a fairly comfortable transition. But there are some rough spots. As sheets of rain came down on Fox Studios one day last summer, the "Superman" crew hustled to a lunch tent after shooting a scene at the entrance to the arctic Fortress of Solitude (in this case, a soundstage covered with painted sawdust and faux snowdrifts). The complaint of the day: Weather and catering that fall short of L.A. in every way.
The film's director, Bryan Singer, said shooting in Australia afforded every convenience on the technical side and that the distance from home actually helped to keep the production focused. Not only did the long hours keep the crew on task, when they're cut free the sleepy suburb surrounding the studio was hardly a Sunset Strip of temptations.
Despite the activity there is still a lazy feeling to the Fox Studios Australia complex, especially just beyond the gates of the working lot where a retail hub has been built in the vein of CityWalk at Universal Studios in Los Angeles. Downtown, Sydney is a cosmopolitan and gleaming city by the sea, but the suburbs are not terribly exciting — the exception being the grim recent civil strife that made headlines around the world. The news of racial unrest in some of the beach districts earlier this month was the sort of unpredictable dispatch that can send a shudder through Hollywood producers who never know what new chaos will affect their overseas ventures.
Studio executives say that in planning productions, they consider a range of factors, including shifts in economic policies, changes in government, currency exchange rates, weather and natural disasters, and union and labor issues.
The vagaries of production travel might present sandstorms or packs of wild dogs in some corners of the world, but in Sydney, Hollywood has found a steady sister. The prospect of high predictability always makes accountants and studio executives breathe easier, but sometimes the cast and crews have to stifle a yawn.
One night, for instance, executive producer Chris Lee, screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris and a dozen others working on the film struck out for a midnight screening of "War of the Worlds" — because of the international date line, the show at a movie theater adjacent to the Fox Studios lot was one of the first screenings of the film in the world.
The group bought their tickets hours early anticipating a crushing crowd — they ended up, literally, being the only people in the room and chuckling about the different pace of life from L.A.
"It's like summer camp but a really brutal summer camp," Singer said the next day. "The thing is, with the advantages here we can get everything we can out of the budget. Everything is bigger in Australia. Big is bigger in Australia."
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 31, 2005, 02:31:52 PM
The group bought their tickets hours early anticipating a crushing crowd — they ended up, literally, being the only people in the room and chuckling about the different pace of life from L.A.
yeah, it's called the luxury of not being smothered by fat americans everywhere you go. jerks.
I think every place has the same ratio of their own "fat Americans" as every place else. But because we have a big population, we have so many more "fat americans". Plus, they're all densely packed into suburban areas, it's all you'll see at times. didn't australia have a bunch of redneck-type racists rioting recently? Or is that something else? I'm not shoving it in your face or defending fat americans (I hate them more than you do), I'm just saying maybe those are your fat americans. like europe, they have the french (zing).
Quote from: Gamblour on January 01, 2006, 11:13:11 PM
I think every place has the same ratio of their own "fat Americans" as every place else. But because we have a big population, we have so many more "fat americans". Plus, they're all densely packed into suburban areas, it's all you'll see at times. didn't australia have a bunch of redneck-type racists rioting recently? Or is that something else? I'm not shoving it in your face or defending fat americans (I hate them more than you do), I'm just saying maybe those are your fat americans. like europe, they have the french (zing).
I definitely recall news footage of beefy, sunburned blonde dudes throwing Foster's cans at Arab kids. I just took it as a sign that "spreading freedom" is contagious.
But anyway. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the upcoming blockbuster, "Superman Repeats".
Quote from: Gamblour on January 01, 2006, 11:13:11 PM
didn't australia have a bunch of redneck-type racists rioting recently?
yeah but that's exactly what it was, redneck idiots with beer cans and nothing better to do on another scorching summer day.
my point was these hollywood types, singer and his cronies or whatever executives the quote i selected was about, they're mocking our lack of crazy midnite-premiere turnout? it said they were expecting a crushing crowd and seemed to have been disappointed that they were the only ppl in the cinema... uh that's a good thing in my book. it's like, "oh wow, a country that actually
sleeps at nite." i'd rather have a great nite's sleep and wake up refreshed than be strung out all the time, which is what they're used to. besides, those ppl are clearly not making the most of sydney night-life if they chose to waste their free time on a midnite screening clearly aimed at geeks.
and for the record, one shitty riot is no defense for anything.
Quote from: Gamblour on January 01, 2006, 11:13:11 PM
I think every place has the same ratio of their own "fat Americans" as every place else. But because we have a big population, we have so many more "fat americans". Plus, they're all densely packed into suburban areas, it's all you'll see at times. didn't australia have a bunch of redneck-type racists rioting recently? Or is that something else? I'm not shoving it in your face or defending fat americans (I hate them more than you do), I'm just saying maybe those are your fat americans. like europe, they have the french (zing).
but the "fat Americans" will never riot though. a fat American isn't violent like a soccer hooligan, desperate like a gypsy, wacky like a Japanese, or snobby like a frenchman, a fat American refers to someone who is complacent in his sheltered bubbly world in America and expects the rest of the world to behave accordingly when he travels abroad. And I think that's a pretty American phenomena, it's true that every culture probably has some type of people export that it's desperately ashamed of, but fat Americans are definitely uniquel, because only fat Americans can afford that type of virtual insulation from the rest of the world, totally unaware of its abnormal, overwhelming presence into the reaches too far for its own good, and being the world's only superpower. I mean, in America you don't get a slew of the so-called fat Chinese fat Mexican fat Italian or whatever, though those snobby shallow tourists frequent your big cities everyday.
Quote from: pete on January 02, 2006, 11:44:49 AM
Quote from: Gamblour on January 01, 2006, 11:13:11 PM
I think every place has the same ratio of their own "fat Americans" as every place else. But because we have a big population, we have so many more "fat americans". Plus, they're all densely packed into suburban areas, it's all you'll see at times. didn't australia have a bunch of redneck-type racists rioting recently? Or is that something else? I'm not shoving it in your face or defending fat americans (I hate them more than you do), I'm just saying maybe those are your fat americans. like europe, they have the french (zing).
but the "fat Americans" will never riot though. a fat American isn't violent like a soccer hooligan, desperate like a gypsy, wacky like a Japanese, or snobby like a frenchman, a fat American refers to someone who is complacent in his sheltered bubbly world in America and expects the rest of the world to behave accordingly when he travels abroad. And I think that's a pretty American phenomena, it's true that every culture probably has some type of people export that it's desperately ashamed of, but fat Americans are definitely uniquel, because only fat Americans can afford that type of virtual insulation from the rest of the world, totally unaware of its abnormal, overwhelming presence into the reaches too far for its own good, and being the world's only superpower. I mean, in America you don't get a slew of the so-called fat Chinese fat Mexican fat Italian or whatever, though those snobby shallow tourists frequent your big cities everyday.
i think you definitely said it best. but a part of me doesn't want to be so cynical that this is the reality. I want just an inkling of hope. But like you said, it's almost an exercise in isolationism America has, especially in the segregated suburbs. you're point is damn right on.
p, i see what you mean. but what is the nightlife like if the city is really asleep?
Quote from: Gamblour on January 02, 2006, 12:01:55 PM
p, i see what you mean. but what is the nightlife like if the city is really asleep?
it sounds like i contradicted myself so i'll clarify. what i meant was the country is asleep but sydney isn't, but all major eastern cities are sprawling enuff to exhibit both qualities. their fatal flaw was judging the country based on a turnout at a midnite screening. it makes no sense.
Singer Admits to 'Superman' Pressures
By Daniel Fienberg
February 15, 2006
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com)- There are filmmakers who embrace convention crowds with humor and enthusiasm, swapping geeky jokes and references with alacrity. Of course, for every Kevin Smith or J.J. Abrams, there must be an equal number of directors who sweat a bit under the intense fan gaze.
"I feel more pressure from the comic book community," admits Bryan Singer backstage after his "Superman Returns" premiere at San Francisco's WonderCon. "I serve the comic book community. The studio understands my responsibilities and supports me 100 percent."
Serving the comic book community means answering the kinds of questions that Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford probably never needed to field. Will Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) be strong enough? Which villains are being groomed for future films? Is Superman's (Brandon Routh) codpiece stuffed, padded or 100 percent natural? With two "X-Men" films under his belt, Singer is used to the heat, but "Superman Returns" was a bigger endeavor than anything he'd done before.
"The movie was more daunting," Singer told the WonderCon crowd at a panel that began with disappointment over the absence of fresh "Superman Returns" footage, but found momentum with the Routh's unexpected arrival. "It's a much bigger film than either of those."
Exactly how much bigger "Superman Returns" is has been a matter for some debate. Last month, gossip columnists and industry trade papers began speculating that the budget for the film had soared past $250 million with no end in sight. Singer, it seems, takes exception to those reports. The director calls it "the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
"I'll tell you exactly what the budget is, 184.5 million dollars, and with effects it may still be a few million over that, which is still a great deal of money, but by no means what that guy wrote," he says. "It was just an irresponsible journalist at a specific trade that I'm trying not to name. I don't know, maybe he was talking about Australian dollars, or something."
Singer's much more at ease explaining his intentions in making the film, which he's suggested can be slotted between "Superman 2" and "Superman 3" in the hero's mythology.
"The time felt right to re-experience this character," he notes. "It's time to address and celebrate in some way people's connection to Superman, and how the character has evolved from 1938 to now. In some way celebrate that. Some of it will look familiar physically and emotionally, and some of it will be new."
But with so many expectations, can Singer possibly satisfy everybody?
"First of all, my goal is to make a good film and try to be open about the process. We have an Internet presence and I think you begin by working with the core audience, the fans, and work your way up from there. Primarily, the goal is just to make a good film. If the film's good, then the expectations will be met."
"Superman Returns" opens on Friday, June 30.
A Sentimental SUPERMAN
Bryan Singer admits that Superman Returns is easily the most humorous and romantic film he has ever made.
By Pam Grady, FilmStew.com
Superman may be faster than a speeding bullet, but not so Superman Returns, the superhero's belated return to the big screen. Just finding a star, director, and screenwriters turned out to be perhaps the movie's biggest challenge, with any number of people attached to the project over the years.
But on June 30th, Clark Kent's alter ego takes to the skies once again and earlier this week, director Bryan Singer swept into San Francisco's WonderCon comic book convention to unspool tantalizing clips from the work in progress and introduce the new man in tights, Brandon Routh. At one time, Nicolas Cage was set to assume the role, Josh Hartnett turned it down, and other actors in contention for the part included Brendan Fraser, Ashton Kutcher, and Jude Law. But it was the unknown Routh - whose biggest role previously was as a troubled college boy on the soap opera One Life to Live - that Singer wanted.
"A famous actor would have too much baggage," Singer explains. "The character of Superman is so much larger than any particular actor and he has to feel like he's stepped out of your collective memory."
The personable Routh is aware that the opportunity could go a couple of ways. If the blockbuster mojo that Singer brought to X-Men and X-Men 2 holds, then it is overnight stardom. But if Superman Returns fails to return on its $184.5 million budget, then the 26-year-old Des Moines native might be riding the fast track to oblivion.
The actor is betting on his director and the part of a lifetime. "I'm very honored to be the guy who has the opportunity to do this. It felt like the right thing, it felt like the way it was going to happen. Bryan made it very easy for me not to be scared out of my mind," he says.
Routh has some mighty big tights to fill. Superman has been part of the American consciousness for close to 70 years, the comic book character who morphed into novels, cartoons, movies, TV series, radio, and other media. Currently, he is on TV every week in the person of Tom Welling in the series Smallville. There is also the matter of the so-called Superman curse - George Reeves who played him in a pioneering 1950s TV series shot himself (that is the subject of a separate film, Hollywoodland, starring Ben Affleck), while the movies' Christopher Reeve became paralyzed after an equestrian accident.
When the subject comes up at WonderCon, Routh shrugs, "I'm nodding my head, but I'm thinking, what curse? I'm not going to let what happened to someone else stop me."
"Superman is a really great character," he avers. "Actors, artists, he's grown and he grows as each artist puts their own twist on it, but they take what everybody else did. Chris [Reeve] was my biggest influence, there's that presence that's there, he's the guy. My portrayal was based on his as much as his was based on everybody else's."
But a new actor is not the only change to this august superhero in his latest incarnation. He still fights for truth, justice, and the American Way, his alter ego is still reporter Clark Kent, and once again he goes mano-a-mano with Lex Luthor, this time around played by Kevin Spacey. But, as the title implies, he has been away, off considering his purpose in life on this alien planet. When he returns, there are changes in the world that he did not anticipate. The great love of his life, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), is engaged to another man and has already had her fiance's baby.
"There's few things with the exception of kryptonite that could form a real obstacle for Superman. He's that powerful," reasons Singer of this new source of conflict. "It's impossible for Superman to navigate around [the fiancé and child]. It's a genuine obstacle."
"It was huge emotionally," adds Routh. "That's the quandary, how do I get around this problem? You can't necessarily. You just have to live your life and be patient. It's an immoveable obstacle."
With that kind of impediment to Superman's true happiness, the cynics may well wonder exactly when and how that pesky fiancé might die, but Singer insists, "in terms of the films I've made, Superman is certainly the most humorous and romantic."
It has been nearly 20 years since Christopher Reeve last donned Superman's cape in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Singer, who is already thinking ahead to sequels, is convinced that the time is right for a new franchise. "It kind of felt right to re-experience this character," the director asserts. "My goal is to address and celebrate in some way people's collective memory of the character Superman and how he is evolved from 1938 to now, to in some way celebrate that. Some of it will be a little familiar, physically and emotionally; some of it will be new, but that's the ultimate."
Routh seconds that notion. "There's a lot of discussion about, is it the right time? People who are huge fans of Chris' performances, not wanting anyone else to come in and attempt to re-create that, which is not what we're doing. But with that, I think what's an important thing maybe for everybody to learn, that I've learned anyway, is that there's a time for change, there's always a time for change."
"Superman brings such joy and inspiration to the world," the freshly minted superhero adds. "It's important to have somebody to keep that out in the public eye. I think there's always time for that energy."
'Superman' torch is passed
Source: USA Today
Midway through the filming of Superman Returns, star Brandon Routh received an envelope in the mail.
It contained two pendants and a letter. The pendants, each emblazoned with a red S, said simply, "Go Forward."
The note from Dana Reeve, the widow of Superman Christopher Reeve, said much the same thing.
"She said she thought I'd be a good Superman," says Routh, 26, best known for a guest role on Gilmore Girls. "She wished me luck. I can't tell you what that was like to get her blessing. I was nervous, because I had never heard from the family, and it's frightening trying to fill Christopher Reeve's shoes."
But Routh will attempt just that as Superman swoops into theaters June 30 with more than just a $180 million budget on its shoulders.
The film, which is enjoying one of the most pronounced marketing campaigns at the ShoWest convention of theater owners in Las Vegas, carries the hope of a lucrative summer at the box office - and expectations that people will get excited about going to the movies again.
For Routh and director Bryan Singer, there's also a personal stake in the film doing well.
"From comic books to radio to TV to the movies, everyone knows this character," says Singer, who also is doing a documentary on the history of Superman. "And they have an idea of who he should be. Those can be big expectations."
Routh realized just how awesome when he received the Superman tags from the Christopher Reeve Foundation, an organization that promotes research on paralysis.
Christopher Reeve was paralyzed in a horseback-riding accident in 1995 and died in 2004. His widow, Dana, died of lung cancer last week.
"I wrote her back but never got to speak with her," Routh says. "Still, it was such an honor. And it made me realize how important it is to respect not just the characters in this movie, but the people who were a part of it."
Indeed, the new Superman abounds with legacies.
Singer says he plans to use the late Marlon Brando in the new film. Brando, who played Superman's father, Jor-El, in the 1978 Superman and died in 2004, will return in the same role.
Singer says he found stock footage of Brando shot by director Richard Donner in 1978, which will provide Brando's voice. Special-effects crews will digitally re-create Brando's image, Singer says.
The new film will revisit the origins of the Man of Steel. Singer is well aware he's treading on hallowed ground.
"This isn't just any comic book character. Superman is America. He's as iconic as it gets. That's a pretty awesome responsibility."
Superman Visits Another Dimension
By Natalie Finn (E! Online)
Superman is returning, and he's going to bust right through the screen.
Warner Bros. Pictures announced Thursday that the Man of Steel will be coming at you this summer. When Superman Returns opens June 30 in wide release, the film is also going to be shown on IMAX screens, with 20 minutes of the action converted into 3-D.
This will mark the first time ever that a live-action Hollywood feature has been shown in IMAX 3-D, perhaps a sign of things to come in the days of declining theater attendance. While Superman Returns can easily be considered one of the year's most anticipated movies, studios are probably figuring that any added incentives--better picture, bigger sound, cool glasses--can help.
IMAX Corp. will digitally remaster the long-awaited installment of the superhero's saga to bring it to the ginormous screen, no doubt to the delight of fanboys and -girls.
"The test scenes that have been converted into IMAX 3-D look, sound and feel absolutely amazing," Superman Returns director Bryan Singer said in a statement. "The magic of IMAX 3-D will envelop audiences in the story, enabling them to feel the emotion, drama and suspense in a completely new and unique way."
Moviegoers will be given some sort of visual onscreen cue when it's time to don their fancy specs.
"Today's announcement is a culmination of a great film, a great filmmaker, a great studio, and great technology--all working together to produce the most powerful and immersive cinematic experience available to moviegoers worldwide," IMAX cochairs and co-CEOs Richard Gelfond and Bradley Wechsler said in a statement laden with the promise of a grand cinematic event to come.
Revolutionary IMAX experience or no, hold-your-breath suspense has already been built into the 21st-century Superman experience, with a different actor donning the famous "S" insignia on the big screen for the first time in almost 20 years.
After a Rolodex's worth of names, including Nicolas Cage, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ashton Kutcher and Brendan Fraser, were floated for the title role, Singer decided on relative newcomer Brandon Routh, who to date only has one feature film--Karla, costarring Laura Prepon--under his big yellow belt.
Maybe Routh looked the cutest in the Clark Kent glasses.
The 26-year-old actor might need the strength of a locomotive to shoulder the hype that Superman Returns is generating. Warner Bros. has had the project in the works, in some form or another, for the past 10 years.
In 1998, it was Tim Burton who was going to plot Superman's flight plan. Then Brett Ratner came onboard, but subsequently left and become the man behind the mutant superheroes in X-Men: The Last Stand, which is due in May. Next Charlie's Angels director McG stepped in. And after he stepped out, along came X-Men director Bryan Singer.
This latest chapter in the story of Metropolis finds our hero returning to Earth after a mysterious absence, only to find that Lois Lane has moved on and evil nemeses abound. Kate Bosworth is on hand as Superman's sweetie and Kevin Spacey seems like a great choice to fill Lex Luther's smarmily nefarious shoes.
Quote from: matt35mm on March 31, 2006, 10:23:56 AM
"The test scenes that have been converted into IMAX 3-D look, sound and feel absolutely amazing," Superman Returns director Bryan Singer said in a statement. "The magic of IMAX 3-D will envelop audiences in the story, enabling them to feel the emotion, drama and suspense in a completely new and unique way."
That is the cheesiest thing he could've possibly said.
The last sentence would make for a good banner:
Xixax.com: Smarmily Nefarious
THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR IS ALMOST HERE!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/hd/
Amazing. My interest in this film suddenly dropped about 90%.
Now you're pretty much where my interest in this film has always been.
really? i kind of dug it.
Kevin Spacey looks really, really good in it. Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth make me want to vomit with my face pointed up so that the vomit shoots up and then falls back into my throat and chokes me to death.
Special effects look okay.
You guys are crazy... this will be ready good... I know it!
Maybe not as good as Nacho Libre though :splat:
THAT was some cheesy bullshit. Between the cute kid and all the self-referential lines and imagery....I dunno if Singer wanted reinvent or just repeat the franchise, but it doesn't look promising for either.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1947%2Farticle.jpg&hash=a369e5158f80bf3e632f8af14ab084887b35b9e2)
Whenever this crazy ride of entertainment interviews that I'm on ends there are only a few things that will stick out as highlights. Interviewing David Cronenberg is number one on that list and number two will surely be visiting the set of Superman Returns in Australia. While I was on set with a number of other online writers a number of publicists kept apologizing to us for not having what they considered the most impressive sets up anymore. I kept telling them that what we were seeing was amazing regardless. We got to see a black colored Fortress of Solitude, I got to feel up the Superman costume [on a mannequin you sick minded freaks] and we got to walk about Lex Luthor's yacht. From what I gather Superman Returns takes place five years after the events of Superman II. Superman traveled to the remains of Krypton and when he came back to Earth, Lois Lane has had a child with another man. While on set I got to view the footage of Superman Returns that was shown at San Diego Comicon and interview director Bryan Singer.
Daniel Robert Epstein: Why does the character of Superman appeal to you?
Bryan Singer: It's personal, just like the reasons I did the other films. I'm adopted and I'm an only child. The growth of my life and career has been strange so the character appeals to me very much.
DRE: There've been so many Superman stories over the years, so how do you find a different way to tell the story and keep him fresh to the audience?
Singer: I conceive a new story and have it take turns that you don't expect. In this, Superman has come back to a world that has moved on without him. That's what different about this movie compared to the stories you've seen in the other Superman shows and movies. He's been gone for years so Lois Lane has had a child. But there are things that will be familiar, as they should, because it's Superman.
DRE: Why did you decide to shoot Superman Returns with the digital Genesis cameras instead of film cameras?
Singer: The higher resolution image will retain a romantic quality, a texture and dynamic range of film. When you see it you'll feel like you're watching something special but you'll still feel like you're watching film. The only analogy I can make is the one that came after the advent of 70mm. The impetus to do it came from when I was doing a screen test with Brandon Routh. Originally I was just going to shoot it in 35mm and then I decided to shoot a few takes in 70mm so we can have the experience of shooting in that format since we'll probably never have that experience again. We shot a few takes in that and when we processed them and watched them in a theater we saw that there was such clarity and the image was so strong. Then we felt we wanted to shoot Superman in 70mm. The issue was that the cameras are too large to put on certain complicated rigs, the film is too expensive, they don't process it in Australia and the lenses of the 70mm camera have too little depth to focus. Also we couldn't use zoom lens because the elements in the lens are too visible for what the 70mm picks up so it became impossible to make this movie in 70mm.
Then [director of photography Newton Thomas Sigel] said that there is a new camera built from the ground up in a joint project by Sony and Panavision called the Genesis camera that takes the image onto a single chip with about 12 million mega-pixels. It is meant to take the light and color more like film and the final result is very different than the standard three chip cameras now being used in features. They only had one of the Genesis camera and they're building a second one because for every 600 chips that get made, only one works, which is then put in a camera and tested in the hot and cold environments. Then they send it to Panavision, where many of them are rejected, so you have a lot of unfinished cameras. They brought two of them from France to Australia, tested it and did what, to date, is the most comprehensive Genesis film possible. We did long, elaborate late night tests with Brandon to try to make an actual comparison. We sent everything back to LA to have it transferred to film so we could compare the results. We really wanted to make this a personal decision of two people, me and [Newton Thomas Sigel], who have worked together since The Usual Suspects. We felt the comparisons were acceptable. What usually bothers me with digital film wasn't there and there was a possibility to make it look something you hadn't seen before yet wasn't making you feel like watch Superman: The Video.
DRE: The footage you screened at last year's San Diego Comicon and it got an amazing response. Did that change how you feel the fans may respond to the film?
Singer: It just makes me feel more positive about the imagery and look of the picture. The fact that it was so well-received just makes me pretty excited. Also after you make two X-Men movies and have the costumes released early, you don't get offended by fan criticism. So after seven years in the X-Men universe I don't get worried about that stuff.
DRE: The footage we just saw has that smoky retro feel to it, why does that work for Superman?
Singer: To me, Superman Returns for all its modernism and scope and action and contemporary nature in regards to the plot and in terms of Superman returning, and putting the early films into history, it's a very 1940's love story about what happens when old boyfriends come back into your life.
DRE: What is your favorite era in the Superman comics?
Singer: I like a lot of artists' interpretations of Superman, but my personal favorite is Alex Ross. It's very mythic. He humanizes them but also makes them into these paintings.
DRE: Whether you meant it or not, there seems to be a strong political aspect to Superman Returns. Superman is the most powerful man in the world, he lives in American, he helps people when maybe they didn't ask for help, the people of the country where he lives may not want him to help anyone and reporters print stories about how we don't need him. These are strong allegories to the political climate of America.
Singer: Sure but it's not really intentional per se. Superman has constantly reflected the times since the second World War. I like to see Superman as a more global superhero who happened to be raised in a farm in America. He has that whole notion of fighting for Truth, Justice and The American Way. That's an idealism that Americans very much have about themselves and their place in the world. But that idealism is ultimately fraught with obstacles and sometimes misunderstandings. But it's an idealism and that's why it's so charming in the first movie when he says, "Truth, Justice and The American Way" and she says, "You'll end up fighting every politician in the U.S" and he says, "You don't really mean that Lois" and she says, "You must be kidding" and he says, "I never lie." In that way he's a very American superhero. But in our movie I'm trying to make a point that not only is he the great American superhero but that he's also the ultimate immigrant. He comes from a foreign land, he dons the costume and embraces his special heritage but at other times tries to adapt to the culture by being Clark Kent. His multiple personalities are very much part of him as the immigrant and is very much the heart of how I see the American immigrant.
DRE: You've said you've had the idea for this movie for a while. Where did the inspiration came from?
Singer: I loved the George Reeves series as a kid and I loved the Donner films. It began when someone mentioned they were making a Superman vs. Batman film. I don't remember this, but apparently I was talking to [Superman Returns co-screenwriter] Mike Dougherty about what I'd do if I had these two superheroes in a movie. Ultimately I started thinking, "What if I was just making a Superman movie?" I started thinking I wouldn't want to touch the first one, because to me it's very classic. So I figured I would make him gone for a while. Then one night in Austin, Texas, about two years ago, Richard Donner, Lauren Shuler-Donner and I went up into a hotel room for some reason and I said to Richard, "Can I talk to you for a second?" and Richard said, "sure." I said, "What if I were to make a Superman movie? It's not available, there's a whole other script, someone else is involved, but what if I did that?" Richard Donner said, "That's fantastic. That's great. What would you do?" We started talking about it and I told him a vague idea of what I'd do and he embraced it. I pitched it to Warner Bros but they were committed to another idea. I read that idea and did not respond to it. Then I was speaking at Hawaii University with [producer] Chris [Lee] when I was given the JJ Abrams draft. But I didn't respond to it and then it was gone and then the next year the project was available again but with no director. I was producing Logan's Run with Warner Bros and they saw how quickly I moved in the development process with Logan's Run so they were more receptive to the idea of me doing something new. Then I started talking to [co-screenwriter] Dan [Harris] and Mike in Hawaii. I said, "Here's my vague idea" and we started talking about it. Then after four days we were halfway into a 30 page single spaced treatment and we were committed to doing it after Logan's Run. The next night we were at dinner with [production designer] Guy Dyas and the four of us decided to make Superman Returns next instead.
DRE: What made you want to cast an unknown as Superman?
Singer: Superman is such an iconic character so he should feel as though he stepped out of the pages of a comic book or your collective memory of the television series or the films. A name actor wouldn't be able to do that. So that was a lot of going through a lot of tapes and materials that had been collected previously, along with new material. Then we started having meetings with unknowns. I had seen a tape of Brandon that intrigued me so I went to meet him at the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf on Sunset Boulevard. I walked in and I figured I'd know in 20 seconds if it's a no go. I walked in the room and 20 seconds later, I'm thinking, "it's still working for me." I was actually going to Australia for a scout so I was two hours from my flight. I had to get picked up from the coffee shop to make it to the airport. I started to feel good about him just sitting there and then after 10-15 minutes of us just sitting there. I asked him, "Do you want to go outside?" and he stood up, and up and up, and I went, "Whoa!" He's got quite the frame. We went outside and the meeting went on for two hours. Then what was weird is that I got a call from Kevin Spacey's manager, Joanne Horowitz. She said, "Well, I hope you find the next Hugh Jackman" and I said, "I may just be sitting in front of him right now." I looked at Brandon and he looked away like, "I'm not listening to this, I'm not listening to this." I knew that I had Superman.
DRE: Brandon does have that Christopher Reeve thing.
Singer: Oh yeah, in certain ways it is quite remarkable and in others it's different. Since this film puts the Donner films in its history, it was even more important that those qualities be in Brandon even more than the other characters but then also he should be his own guy.
DRE: Did you ever meet Christopher Reeve?
Singer: No, the only time I was near him was at the Cannes Film Festival in 1995. I was eating lunch at the hotel and he was sitting a couple of tables away. Later I wandered by one of the tennis courts and saw him playing tennis. I sat and watched him play tennis for 20 minutes and a week later he had his accident. I found it very disturbing. I'll never forget that. I just thought "How quickly life can change for some."
DRE: How is it directing Kevin Spacey again 11 years after The Usual Suspects?
Singer: It's been a chance for him to come, kick back and enjoy being this character. It's very interesting because it seems like no time has passed and we're having more fun than ever. I went to look for him at one point. I was walking towards my trailer in this big quad area and I was looking at this guy staring at me and I thought, "Oh, he's just a crew member I've never seen before" and I keep walking and he's staring me at me all the way and I'm like, "AHHH!" and it was bald Kevin. That was the first time I saw him like that.
DRE: We've heard about him having a Lex Luthor golf cart.
Singer: Yeah he tied Superman to the golf cart and drove around dragging him screaming into a megaphone "Kill Superman!" or "I'm coming to get you" or something. Then he drove right onto the set and crashed it onto some chair [laughs].
DRE: What made you cast Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane?
Singer: I first became aware of Kate through Beyond The Sea which Kevin directed. So because of that I met her, then I brought her in and her chemistry with Brandon was extremely good and very appropriate for the role. She's only 22 but I felt she could carry the maturity and experience of a woman who'd been a reporter for a period of time and also had a four year old child. The combination of chemistry and the ability to carry that off impressed me tremendously.
DRE: Can you talk about the casting of Hugh Laurie [as Perry White] and then him leaving and Frank Langella coming in?
Singer: Hugh Laurie was obvious for me since I produce his show, House, and I cast him in the pilot. Then House got picked up for another year, good news for me but bad news for his role in Superman Returns. Basically it was a high class problem. I also knew Frank Langella through a mutual friend and have been a fan of his ever since I saw him Dracula on stage. Frank turned out to be perfect.
DRE: What old materials did you have access to when making this movie?
Singer: Anything and everything. One of the unique things is that since I needed to use elements of Marlon Brando for this movie, I got to see all the material they shot with him and listen to all the original [Automatic Dialogue Replacement] sessions. They're very funny. [in Brando voice] "This is no fantasy. This is no careless product of... fuck... fuck... what is it?" [laughs] A lot of that.
DRE: Will all of it be available for you to use in the film?
Singer: Yeah, we had to make a deal with the estate of Marlon Brando. There's a sequence that requires the voice and image of Marlon Brando. You'll be hearing original vocal elements that were not used in the film.
DRE: You are really good at finding new talent.
Singer: Yeah, I've had great luck since The Usual Suspects with Benicio [Del Toro] and Kevin [Spacey], then with Hugh Jackman and Ian McKellen. At the time I had seen Halle Berry in Bulworth and I just fell for her in that. With Hugh Laurie in my TV show, I wasn't even familiar with the work he's done in England but I've never been afraid to have an unknown or lesser known at the center of my projects.
DRE: You've also said that you were going to be using John Williams score in certain ways but also that the Fleischer cartoon and George Reeves series inspired the look of the film. Have you ever thought of using any of their thematic cues?
Singer: I thought of using the one from the Fleischer cartoons. It is really weird because if the Fleischer cartoons didn't have that theme going in them, they'd be really dark. They're really intense and graphic in the way he interacts and transforms. That's because rotoscoping was used, in fact, it was some of the first rotoscoping ever done.
DRE: Will the Williams theme play over the credits?
Singer: The opening credits will have a theme that if it is not identical will be similar to the opening credits of the first film. It was also be spread throughout the film as well. As for other things from past incarnations we have cameos from Noel Neill and Jack Larson [from the TV show Adventures of Superman]. In the backdrop of Metropolis you'll see the names Siegel and Shuster. There are certain rights issues so we have to see what's available.
DRE: The original opening credits of Superman were very unique, what are you doing for your opening credits?
Singer: An idea similar to the Donner film but with more information, which will help us catch up with what's been going in the world with Superman. I'm designing it right now with Digital Kitchen, who did my opening for House. They're terrific people.
DRE: A film creator has to have many sides, the sensitive artistic side, the idealistic side and you also have to be a ruthless businessman at times. That seems to parallel the three big personalities in the movie, Clark Kent, Superman and Lex Luthor.
Singer: If I were going to identify with one guy, I wouldn't identify with Luthor because he's kind of crazy. It would be more the three sides of Clark Kent. There's the side that's very idealistic and was raised on the farm had hopes and dreams of everything working out for his family. There's Superman who feels the need to do everything right and please everyone and solve problems and feels a compulsion to do that. Then there's Clark Kent, which is where I hide because I've just got a small group of friends. As for Luthor, I'm not a very ruthless person but I am very focused and I can be intense.
DRE: There are Superman fans from eight years old up to 80. Will this movie have broad appeal?
Singer: Yes, absolutely but it will not lack in intensity. It'll probably be PG-13 but at the same time the violence and the tone of it will be much broader. This will be something older people will be able to visit and people will be able to take their kids to. But at the same time I don't think you'll be disappointed at all in the level of intensity. It won't be a soft Superman but it will be the broadest, most romantic and funny movie I've ever been involved with.
DRE: You've been credited with raising the level of comic book movies to the level of having real meaning in the world. What do these films allow you to do that straight up, dramatic films wouldn't allow you to do?
Singer: Science Fiction and fantasy has always enabled people to tell stories about bigotry, about totalitarian governments, subversive issues of sexuality and gender and so many things. Star Trek had the first interracial kiss on television. Being under the guise of science fiction and fantasy allows you to talk about the human condition from a unique perspective and even though the adventure of it all kind of overwhelms the message, the message is still there. There's no specific agenda on my part, but you should be making a movie about something. There's a practical reason I'm making a Superman movie. I promise you that it's not the money and it's not simply "Wow, this is Superman." With this amount of time and this amount of life force, there has be a personal reason. There's a personal reason I made X-Men, there's a personal reason I made Apt Pupil and there's a personal reason I made The Usual Suspects, although that one errs more on the side of "this is going to be cool."
DRE: Is there much of a difference between directing Marvel and DC characters?
Singer: I really wouldn't know enough about the differences about Marvel and DC. I don't view them as Marvel and DC because I'm not that familiar with all the characters to really comment on them. But there's definitely a difference in making an ensemble film like X-Men and making a film that is about one man and although there was romance in X-Men, Superman is a love story.
DRE: How come you met with Al Gough and Miles Millar, the creators of Smallville?
Singer: We first met in Los Angeles, out of respect of the fact that Smallville has held the torch for the past five years of the Superman universe. Instead of alienating that show and that effort, which is incredible, I thought it'd be nice to sit down and talk to them about what we're doing. Then in turn they would talk about what they're doing and so far we've kept in touch so that we don't cut over each other's universe. You'll see Clark when he's young, before the Tom Welling years. I try not to tread over the universe they created. They send us scripts, designs and outlines of what they're doing. Then I'll send them a few of our designs. Don't misunderstand me, they're two separate entities but there's no reason we shouldn't co-exist.
DRE: Would you consider doing a Superman sequel?
Singer: I take each of these as an experience and fortunately I'm not an actor, so I don't have to sign multi-picture deals. But of course I would consider it; I was perfectly thrilled to make a sequel of X-Men.
You're all mad, I still have total faith in this movie.
The teaser was better, but I still think it's going to be great.
Quote from: RegularKarate on May 03, 2006, 01:11:16 PM
You're all mad, I still have total faith in this movie.
The teaser was better, but I still think it's going to be great.
totally.
Quote from: ©brad on May 03, 2006, 04:46:41 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on May 03, 2006, 01:11:16 PM
You're all mad, I still have total faith in this movie.
The teaser was better, but I still think it's going to be great.
totally.
:yabbse-thumbup:
'Superman Returns': Learning to fly
Brandon Routh got the role in a single bound. Faster than a speeding bullet came changes more powerful than... you know.
Source: Los Angeles Times
The tall, handsome guy with the square jaw and the Midwest manners was comfortably anonymous when he arrived at the lunchtime patio of Il Piccolino on Robertson, but the staff began whispering when the gentleman stepped back outside to have his photograph taken for a major metropolitan daily newspaper. By the time Brandon Routh sat back down for lunch, his secret identity was pretty much shot.
"They figured out who I am, but, you know, usually I don't get too many people recognizing me. My hairdo in real life is not like Superman. It keeps me pretty safe at this point. But I know it'll happen more when the movie comes out."
The movie is "Superman Returns," which lands in theaters on June 30 and should instantly transform Routh from a mere mortal actor with some soap-opera credits into the iconic hero of a Warner Bros. franchise of the first order. A week before Routh took a corner table and ordered a chicken-and-broccoli pasta dish (what, you expected something with capers?), the young actor was on the cover of Entertainment Weekly for the second time — not bad for a guy who has so far starred in only a movie trailer. Such is the power of that red-and-blue suit, perhaps the most famous piece of clothing since Santa's fur-lined ensemble.
Principal filming of "Superman Returns," directed by Bryan Singer and also starring Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth, wrapped in Australia just before Thanksgiving. Since then, Routh has spent time with his girlfriend, made it home for the holidays with his family in Iowa, and even jetted off to Italy to hoist a torch during the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics. On deck, the promotional circuit for the film will take him to London, Tokyo, Paris, Brazil and other places the small-town kid has never been.
Wearing the cape is a tall order, the 26-year-old knows. He's aware that Christopher Reeve struggled to find other film roles after wearing it, and that, decades ago, George Reeves became bitter when producers didn't want him for other work and kids on the street kicked him to see if he was invulnerable.
"They still might," Routh said. For the record, he promised not to kick back. "I'll just start wearing shin guards."
Over lunch, Routh chewed as much on his thoughts as he did his arugula salad. He spoke carefully too; he has been displeased with some aspects of the early media coverage and he is bracing for the ride through the strange gantlet of the international press junket.
"I've already learned some important and good lessons," he said.
What have been the sticky points? Routh, who works out diligently, isn't happy that some people have the impression that his physique on screen is the creation of CGI special effects and a magic suit.
"For people who haven't seen me in person, they don't understand," he said with a sour expression. "It's actually the only thing I get touchy about — no, not touchy; the only thing I worry about is people getting the perception that it was all going to be fake."
The actor wore the expression of a guy who tells himself that he's fighting a losing battle. Fake and real are hard to sort out in a movie that makes you believe a man can fly. Routh, for instance, has brown eyes, but contact lenses made them blue in the movie. But not blue enough — the filmmakers went back and tinkered even more with his irises in the close-up scenes. There are so many CGI images in the film that Routh himself admits that in some segments he is not sure if he is seeing himself or just a hard-drive approximation of himself, real muscles and all.
A REAL MAN IN TIGHTS
When the filming wrapped, Routh got one souvenir: The makeup and hair people gave him a framed lock of artificial hair, the spit curl from Superman's famed brow. It was a great memento but also a reminder of the tug between real and fake. "I never actually used the hair curl on screen, my own hair was just easier [to style] and looked good."
The strange sensation of seeing yourself taken into new artificial realities extends even beyond the movie theaters.
He mulled the whole process of becoming Superman, a physically rigorous role and one that carries the threat of typecasting, and then watching the strange and sometimes shrill echoes of it through pop culture.
That most recent Entertainment Weekly issue, for instance, had a full-page, up-close photo of Routh as Clark Kent — but the actor said the photo had been concocted from a picture of him as Superman altered on a computer to add eyeglasses and a different haircut. Stranger than that, Routh has been browsing the Internet to check out the new line of Superman action figures and other toys that bear his likeness and all the fake MySpace sites that claim to be the portal of the real Routh.
Another sigh. "I shouldn't worry about it. I should just let it go....
"Hey, it's all part of the show."
Another part of the show is winning over an audience. Routh knows that the fans of "Smallville," the popular television series about young Clark Kent's adventures before he dons the super-suit, have been grumbling that "their" Kryptonian, Tom Welling, should have been the face of the franchise. Routh praised Welling and asked only that people give the new film a chance on its own.
Routh, whose name rhymes with "south," is an earnest fan of film and hopes to produce and then direct someday. His favorite film is "Braveheart" ("It told me, really for the first time, how inspiring film can be"), and he is hopeful that "Superman Returns" will not only launch a role in a major franchise but also provide a platform for roles that do not require tights.
The summer movie is a flagpole for the studio, and Routh has, naturally, been getting phone calls with prospective next projects. Many of them are action films, but Routh is reluctant to go that direction right now. "Two years ago I wouldn't have turned anything down," he said. "Turning things down is strange, but I've done a bit of that."
One reason: The Clark Kent scenes in "Superman Returns" were shot first, so the last four months or so in Australia involved a lot of solo flying — back-to-back weeks of dangling in harnesses and spending solitary hours against a green screen. The young actor is eager for roles that will put him face to face with other actors and quieter moments.
This new Man of Steel points out that Tobey Maguire, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale have recently portrayed superheroes and have not been confined to those personas by the movie-going audience. True, but those actors, unlike Reeve and Routh, were not virtual unknowns when they suited up. And they weren't Superman, either.
"Superman Returns," though, presents the old war horse hero in some surprising new situations. Lois Lane is engaged to another man, and the world isn't sure it still wants its red-caped hero — it's not hard to view the film's themes as a metaphor for the place of traditional American icons and ideals in the modern age of cynicism.
"I think people will be interested to see him as a mature Superman," he said. "He really goes through a learning experience in dealing with people and relationships; he wants to be human, but he wants to be a hero too."
Routh said he knows the movie "won't have people leaving the theater and changing their lives, but it's valuable to remind us of what heroes are about." While he was talking, his fingers grazed the edge of his plate and he jerked his hand back. "Ouch, that's hot." Right there, the proof: Routh is clearly from this planet.
hugh jackman was a virtual unknown before x-men.
This is a lot better than I expected. Now if they can just digitally erase that fucking kid, we might have something here.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2006%2FSupermanReturnsPoster.jpg&hash=fe6c961efe22446ca59f8ff32e39477845c8a463)
if only superman didn't look like he's made of rubber... :yabbse-sad:
if only cronopio wasnt made of glue the things you say wouldnt...
UK Trailer here. (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbol/uk/movies/supermanreturns/superman_returns_tlrf3_qt_500.mov)
New Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1432867&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Wow, that was Kevin spacey at his most badass. So happy about this.
Worse one yet.
too many trailers!
Quote from: ©brad on May 28, 2006, 08:58:48 AMbring on superman already.
Superman's New DateComing sooner to a theater near you!IGN FilmForce has been able to confirm that Warner Bros. has pushed up the release date of Superman Returns. The Bryan Singer-directed comic book movie will now open on Wedneday June 28th rather than on June 30th.
The release date change was first reported by Coming Soon.
Perhaps Warners was inspired to push up Superman's release date upon seeing the record four-day take for the opening of X-Men: The Last Stand?
Lost Son Of Krypton
by Mike Russell, InFocus
Screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty worked 24/7 to help Bryan Singer resurrect the Man of Steel, pitting Superman against his mightiest foe: roiling angst!
Superman's return to the big screen is one of the most convoluted — and expensive — development stories in Hollywood history.
After 1987's "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" cold-cocked the franchise that Richard Donner launched so reverently in 1978, the Man of Steel went into a 17-year development coma.
The behind-the-scenes saga is long, silly and mind-bogglingly pricey.
• There were abortive drafts (including a few by "Clerks" writer-director Kevin Smith) that tried to adapt the 1993 "Death of Superman" comic-book storyline, with producer Jon Peters allegedly suggesting the inclusion of giant spiders and/or computerized archvillain Brainiac fighting polar bears at the Fortress of Solitude.
• Tim Burton ("Batman," "Planet of the Apes") subsequently developed a version that reportedly jettisoned both the classic costume and Superman's ability to fly, with Nicolas Cage donning whatever replaced the cape and tights.
• Wolfgang Peterson ("The Perfect Storm") developed a "Batman vs. Superman" film.
• McG ("Charlie's Angels") and Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour") were at different times attached to direct a controversial script by J.J. Abrams (TV's "Alias") that completely re-invented the Superman mythos against the backdrop of an interstellar war.
Enter director Bryan Singer — and Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris.
Dougherty and Harris had some experience with chaotic superhero franchises: They cut their teeth as a screenwriting team on the set of "X2" — working around the clock to help director Singer find a third act mid-shoot.
And when Singer came up with a clever (and more traditional) idea to resurrect the "Superman" franchise in 2004, he brought Dougherty, Harris and much of his "X-Men" production team with him.
With Donner's blessing, Singer chose to continue, rather than re-boot, the "Superman" series — aiming to capture the spirit (if less of the slapstick) associated with "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II." The film follows Clark Kent's (Brandon Routh) return to Earth after a multi-year trip to the cold remains of his original home, the planet Krypton. He comes back to a more complicated world — one where Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has a fiancé (James Marsden) and a son, and where a just-out-of-prison Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is plotting an elaborate revenge that may or may not involve technology stolen from Superman's Fortress of Solitude.
In Focus talked with Dougherty and Harris about Superman, the late Marlon Brando, Lex Luthor, Bryan Singer, Richard Donner, 24/7 screenwriting — and whether "Superman Returns" really is the unofficial "Superman III." An edited transcript follows.
_____
SUPERMAN'S EMOTIONAL RESCUE
IN FOCUS: Okay. We've read in the official release that Superman's adventure "takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space."
DAN HARRIS: And that's literal.
Q. The depths of the ocean?
MICHAEL DOUGHERTY: Well, you know, he has to perform certain kinds of rescues and go underwater.
DH: Just wait and see. We're taking him places he's never been before. We have the technology.
Q. It must be tough to talk about this film and not be able to say anything.
MD: Actually, it's kind of fun. Everybody wants to open their Christmas presents early these days.
Q. The online production documentaries have done a nice job of showing us a lot without telling us everything.
MD: Mm-hm. It gives people a lot of small appetizers. But it also calms people's fears — because there was definitely a concern that we were gonna take things in some weird, wild direction after all the other incarnations [of this project].
Q. Superman's a tough character to write interestingly. Because he's essentially invincible, his best crises on film tend to be spiritual — whether or not to use his powers for selfish ends, his love life, his adoptee status. What are his spiritual struggles in your movie?
MD: Well, they're not so much spiritual as they are emotional. That's what we realized very early on: We've seen Superman go up against every imaginable villain, weapon and obstacle in the movies, TV shows and comics. So we knew we had to attack him from an emotional point of view — to give him an emotional obstacle to overcome, in addition to the physical.
What makes him this identifiable character, and not this god, is the fact that he has very real, human emotions. What he's dealing with [in "Superman Returns"] is that he's come back to a world that's changed in his absence — and what's worse, the person he wants to build a relationship with, Lois Lane, has moved on.
Q. And has a kid.
MD: And has a kid. It's a situation that completely throws him for a loop. It's something he's never dealt with. There's a certain amount of confidence that we have, and he has, that he can go up against bank robbers and chase planes. But this is new.
DH: We have this problem, where the guy's indestructible and stands for "Truth, Justice and the American Way": very strong moral values that aren't necessarily outdated, but we've seen them before. And you can't change that about Superman — [those values] are as indestructible as he is.
So making a story about that kind of character didn't seem totally relevant, or easy, or that interesting to us. But the world has evolved since Superman was last on the big screen — it's more contemporary, edgier and scarier. It's in dire need of a hero more than it was in the '70s.
It was Bryan's big idea to send him away for a number of years, then bring him back — and have the world kind of move on and change with him gone. Bringing Superman back into a world he doesn't fit in was the heart of the drama.
Lois Lane has moved on. His mother has moved on in certain ways. He comes back to situations that aren't cats in trees. So he has to become a hero by kind of riding the middle line and getting at his own "Truth" — and not stepping on people's toes.
Q. His motto is "Truth, Justice and the American Way." But what is "Truth"? What is "Justice"? What is "the American Way"?
DH: It's been distorted in the last 20 years. That's at the heart of Superman's struggle.
And he has an emotional story with Lois: What do you do when you come back to someone you love and they've moved on completely? He's a good person who doesn't lie — he doesn't break up relationships. It's the problem that's almost impossible for him to solve, and that's what makes the story interesting.
Q. When a character is invincible, how do you keep his actions motivated?
MD: Well, I think that comes more or less from his father — both sets of parents, really.
The Kents taught him that he had to use his powers for good, that he was put here for a reason — which is a line we actually have in the film. That's backed up by Jor-El's teachings, which are that he can serve as an example to humanity.
You have a character whose sole reason for being here is to make the world better — backed up with the traditional all-American values he was raised with. That Kent-farm upbringing provides the motivation. If Jor-El had sent him to Earth and he'd been raised by the wrong kind of people, we'd have an evil Superman on our hands.
Q. There's a great alternate-universe comic where he's raised by the Russians —
MD: Yeah. "Red Son." That's a great read. No matter what Jor-El taught him, the fact that he was raised by this humble farm couple made all the difference.
DH: And I think you have fun toying with his motivations. His motivation in this one isn't entirely the same as it was in "Superman: The Movie." He's a man with history this time around. He's been through years of fighting Lex Luthor. And he's been away, so he's lost his sense of identity — his place in the world. He's lost his motivation to be who he is, and he has to re-discover it.
_____
SUPERDAD RETURNS
Q. Fans of the "Superman: The Movie" were gobsmacked to hear that Marlon Brando's in "Superman Returns." How important was it to have him in the film?
MD: It was really important to us. Bryan's original pitch involved bringing Brando back. He was such a strong foundation in the original film, it wouldn't feel right to have some other actor or sound-alike appear as Jor-El.
DH: He was so iconic — Brando as Superman's father. If we could work him in without faking or denigrating anything, how special would that be?
MD: For people familiar with the original film, they know exactly who that is. And for some 8-year-old kid who's never seen "Superman," it's such a strong performance that I think it'll resonate.
Q. Did it take a lot of negotiating to get the Brando footage?
MD: There was the typical hassle, but it wasn't a drawn-out process. I think we were all surprised how quickly things worked out.
Q. Did you have to write around the old Brando footage, or?...
DH: There's no faking or voice-alikes. There won't be any of that.
Q. But he does speak in the film?
DH: Uh, in a sense. It's very cool the way it's done; I can't really get into it. It's partly things we remember Jor-El being part of.
Q. Well, if Superman is sort of the comic-book Jesus, then Jor-El is God. You don't re-cast God.
DH: Is Marlon Brando not God?
_____
IS THIS 'SUPERMAN III'?
Q: Is "Superman Returns" the unofficial "Superman III"?
MD: [sighs] Okay, um, it's funny — I think Bryan and Dan and I need to sit down and discuss this answer before we talk to too many other reporters.
My personal belief — and I know Bryan has been quoted as saying differently — is that this is not "Superman III." I don't feel like it's appropriate to discount "Superman III" and "IV," because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into them, and even if you don't like them or don't think they're up to a certain quality, they're still "Superman" movies.
DH: It's complicated. If this is a sequel to "I" and "II," then everything in "I" and "II" happened. But if we're picking and choosing what we want — which is what I think is what happened, using our memories of "Superman: The Movie" to build our back story — then I can guarantee that it's not the specifics, but the broad strokes of those movies that are part of the "Superman" we're making.
MD: The comparison I like to make is that they're closer to James Bond films. We had a series that starred Sean Connery, and then the torch is passed to another actor, all the way up to Daniel Craig. But they don't call a sequel "James Bond 19," and they don't necessarily refer to events that took place in the previous film. But you do have certain conventions and supporting characters that you're expected to use well. There's always the opening with the iris and the theme song.
So I think we're kind of taking a different franchise in the same direction. We're not going back to square one.
We're not doing a remake. We push the story forward.
DH: Except we're not working with a villain of the day, or a villain of the movie.... It's a "Returns" story. What does that mean? We're trying to have our cake and eat it too — we're remembering things we loved about "Superman I" and "II," and moving forward at the same time. And we've used a big plot device to let us do both.
MD: But I think I have to sit down with Bryan and discuss this with him, because he went to a comic-book convention and said, "Yeah, I guess you could think of this as 'Superman III.'" I just slapped my head and said, "Oh! No! No!"
Q. Have you seen the new so-called "Donner Cut" of "Superman II" heading to DVD with the restored Richard Donner footage?
MD: I haven't seen the one they've put together.
DH: I don't think it's finished yet.
MD: I got a bootleg [of the "Restored International Cut" of "Superman II," a fan-made edit that incorporates some footage broadcast on European TV] at a convention... [laughs] It's really fun to watch. Any time you get to see an "Ultimate Version" of something you were raised on, it's a fun bit of eye candy.
DH: But the bootleg is not Donner's cut — it's a different thing.
Q. Is Brando in the bootleg version?
MD: Not in the version I saw.
Q. I think he's in the official version that's coming out on DVD.
MD: That's possible.
_____
SCREENWRITING 24/7
Q. Dan, you've said of Singer: "Bryan works with people who develop 24 hours a day. The idea of the draft goes out the window." Has that applied to "Superman Returns"? Any 3 a.m. writing sessions?
MD: Oh, God, yes.
DH: [snorts] God, have we had any 3 a.m. writing sessions.... I spent two birthdays in Australia working, and the majority of those nights were 3 a.m. sessions. And, you know, we're all better people for it.
Q. And you're on set, right? Which is very unusual.
MD: Yeah, it's very rare. But when you're working on a film like this, anything can happen, and you have to be available 24/7. Even now that we're in post, there are always new ideas creeping in. I'm not surprised if I get a random phone call.
DH: For us, the thing is flexibility — this idea that things will always change, there will always be problems.... It's part of our job to always be on-call to solve those issues.
Q. What's the secret to keeping your energy up for that — particularly when you're commuting to Australia?
MD: Red Bull. It's that simple. Red Bull, Red Bull, Red Bull.
DH: The good thing about "Superman Returns" — and the difference between it and "X-Men 2," or "Logan's Run," for that matter — is that the three of us nailed out the story of the movie very early on.
We took a vacation on July 4, 2004, and we started coming up with the idea for the movie. And we were all in such agreement — and there was such a weird symbiosis going on — that it all kind of poured out at once. We put together 80 or 90 percent of the movie in three days. It was supposed to be a relaxing vacation, but it turned into work.
We worked all weekend, and on the plane ride home, we worked on the treatment. And within a day or two, the treatment was done — 25 pages, single-spaced. That was the document that Bryan took in to the executives that got everybody the job.
The good news is that it really hasn't changed much since then. What we had was pretty special. We had a strong backbone. So from one draft to the next, it wasn't like "X-Men 2," where we were constantly re-writing the third act. It's mostly character work, trying to get our story as clear as possible, trying to get our dialogue as witty as possible.
But there was still constant development.
Q. Sometimes the project dictates the level of chaos.
DH: Yes. A lot of the ... challenge of "X2" was that you were writing 12 mutants — this giant ensemble — and everyone has to have their allotted screentime and resolution. That is really hard work.
And ultimately, Superman isn't just one character. You're not just writing for Superman. Superman is different from Clark Kent, who's different from Kal-El. There's Superman at the farm and Superman alone. And when he's alone, what's the voice in his head? He's not just a politician who puts a suit on, and he's not just "bumbling Clark."
Q. The scene I'm most looking forward to seeing is the one featured in the teaser trailer — where he's floating alone, above the Earth, listening to the planet.
DH: Yeah. It's turned into one of the more iconic moments in the movie. It was in the first treatment.
The question was, "How does Superman know who to save? Let's clarify those rules." And so we decided he has a perch where he goes, high above the Earth, and he hears every single sound on the planet all at once, and he whittles them down by importance, basically — until he finds that once sound he's gotta go after.
It solved a logic issue for us, and became a beautiful kind of metaphor for the reason he's there.
_____
THE JOY OF LEX
Q. Many people love the first hour-and-a-half of "Superman: The Movie," which is somber and reverent — but have mixed reviews for the more overtly comical second half. Which leads me to ask how you guys are handling Lex Luthor.
MD: That was always one of the hardest parts about the film, finding the right tone for Lex.
Q. I can imagine.
MD: Because as much as we enjoyed Gene Hackman's performance, there was a large segment of the population that — even though they enjoyed it — was like, "Can we get a more serious and menacing villain here?"
DH: That's one of the most fun parts of this movie — getting into Lex Luthor's head. We know Hackman's classic performance, and when he was on, he was really on — but some of the comedy doesn't work nowadays. It's a little dated and over-the-top. How do we change that character and move him forward?
Well, Lex Luthor's been in prison, because of Superman, for five years — and it's really hardened him and darkened him. There's still that hint of witty Lex, but this time around he's a sadist out for revenge. It's a much scarier side of Lex Luthor.
MD: He's much more menacing — but at the same time, he enjoys what he does. You want to like the guy. You want to hang out with him. He's not as grim as someone like Magneto, say, or as serious or heavy-handed. He's a little bit of everything: We have a bit of the scientist and a bit of the politician. Definitely the criminal mastermind.
DH: He's still a capitalist ... but there's a lot more that comes with his plan — and the way he interacts with Superman.
MD: And we had to throw in a dash of comedy — but black comedy.
Q. That's where Parker Posey's "Kitty Kowalski" character comes in?
MD: Yeah.
Q. She's sort of a dark-comedy version of — not Otis, but...?
MD: — Miss Teschmacher. We definitely wanted to give Lex a foil within his own ranks, and figured that people tend to date the same kinds of people over and over. We figured if things went south with Miss Teschmacher, he'd find the next young thing — someone similar, but different.
Q. Some recent comics have explored Luthor's motivation a little more, and given him a very valid point of view: Superman is an alien being. Maybe we shouldn't trust him.
DH: Yeah. In this movie, someone says, "Well, you're not a god, Lex." And he says, "No, I'm not a god. Gods are selfish little beings who fly around in red capes and don't share their powers with mankind."
Q. Is Spacey doing an homage to Hackman's performance at all, or...?
DH: He's taking it his own way. It's hard for me to talk about Kevin's motivations, but I know what ended up onscreen. It's a hardened, scarier Lex. We see hints of the Lex we love, but there's a darker side. Something changed this guy, and he's a real threat now. Not that he wasn't before — but I think people are going to be afraid for that confrontation between Superman and Lex Luthor that finally happens, because it's so built up.
We can't talk about it right now. We should be doing these interviews after the movie comes out.
Q. [laughs] Maybe they'll give you guys a commentary track.
DH: Yeah. We'll say, "Remember when this line was there and we changed it?" That's what writers tend to talk about — drafts.
_____
FLEISCHER-ESQUE
Q. Michael, with your animation background, the Max Fleischer "Superman" cartoons have to have been somewhere in the back of your mind as you were writing this.
MD: Yeah, they were — all throughout the production. Fleischer had a way of making Superman move that I don't think we've ever seen on the big screen in live action. Only now, with today's technology, can we make him move as fluidly as Fleischer did.
Q. How does Superman move differently here than in previous films?
MD: It's more graceful. There's a certain ... ease that he has when he's flying in this film.
Donner did an amazing job with what he had in the late '70s — but Superman was almost always flying in kind of a straight line, or landing, and that's as far as he got. But getting that sense of stopping in mid-air, and then darting in an entirely different direction? We can do that now.
Q. It's great to have a former animator writing this.
MD: We'd be watching the pre-viz — which is kind of an animated storyboard — and I kept finding myself giving criticisms or advice. Bryan would say, "His takeoff doesn't look right!" And I'd say, "That's because he has no anticipation. — that's when a character bends his knees before jumping in the air." That's an animation term. "His cape needs more secondary action."
Q. Rumor control: According to the IMDb, Singer had General Zod removed from the script —
MD: No. Not true.
DH: Not in this movie. I mean, we love Zod. Zod is very cool. But there's no time.
Q. We only saw him fall into some sort of dry-ice chasm. He could still be around.
DH: He could be.
_____
'THIS TOWER OF VIVID COLOR AND RIGHTEOUSNESS'
Q. One thing I always thought Christopher Reeve was really, really good at was shifting his persona between the Kent and Superman personas. You've seen Brandon Routh do it. How does he do it?
DH: Well, he does it with his own Brandon Routh flair. He's not imitating anyone, but he is an amalgamation of all the previous Supermen out there.
And the Brandon we know is not Clark or Superman — he's somewhere in-between. He's such a nice guy. He was the right guy for the movie.
MD: Brandon is definitely adding something of his own, but I think his performance was inspired by Christopher Reeve quite a bit. The way he described it was, "Every actor taking up the torch of Superman takes a little bit from the actor who played him before."
Q. From the production stills I've seen, it looks like this might be the first "Superman" movie where Superman and Clark Kent actually look like two different people.
MD: That's a first. Yeah.
When we dealt with Brandon on-set, it was like we were dealing with two different people. When he was Clark, he was approachable. But when he was Superman, he had such an imposing presence, it was hard to make eye contact with him or even talk to him. I think we felt like the characters in the film — Superman is this celebrity who makes you nervous.
DH: We were sitting in the makeup room, waiting for Brandon to come in with the suit for the first time. We'd seen the suit on a model, and we'd been working with it in our minds for a while. But the second he walked in the makeup room — and he had the curl done already, and he was like 6-foot-6 with the boots — we all went, "Gad. Holy shit. It's Superman." He was this tower of vivid color and righteousness in that all-white room with grey floors. Ever since then, it's been a whole other movie.
All of a sudden, the Brandon who plays video games that I know isn't there any more. I felt myself reacting to a character, not an actor. Which is really weird, because we've seen a lot of actors. I think the only other person I've felt that way around was Patrick Stewart as Xavier. There was something reverent about Patrick in that wheelchair.
_____
GEEKING OUT on the DONNERS
Q. Sam Raimi said he turned to the first hour-and-a-half of "Superman: The Movie" when he was looking for inspiration for "Spider-Man." Richard Donner created such a template.
DH: Oh, absolutely. It's gorgeous.
MD: Yeah. And we took the same approach. We watched Donner's movie quite a bit.
Q. Were there other films you turned to for inspiration on "Superman Returns"?
MD: Well, no, to be totally honest. There's "Superman" and "Superman II," and so many TV shows and comics. If I had to get excited about writing an action scene, I'd pop in a Fleischer cartoon.
DH: It's not that we worked in a vacuum, but that so much of the story came out so quickly. When we came back [from our working vacation], we started looking for iconic inspiration. We looked at things like Cavalier & Clay.
Q. I know how important the word "verisimilitude" was to Donner while he was making "Superman." He had it engraved in wood in his office. What did that word mean for you on a day-to-day basis?
MD: Well, Bryan never used that word —
DH: We've been working with Bryan for so many years, it doesn't need to be said ...
MD: But that's always been Bryan's mandate — that everything be believable. You don't rely upon movie logic: "Oh, it's just a movie. We can do anything." There has to be a rhyme and reason. You can't assume people know what Kryptonite is, or where it comes from. You have to explain it.
Q. Have you had any conversations with the Donners about this project?
MD: A few, here and there. They actually sent us a very nice letter when the project was announced. It was very short, but it was something to the effect of: "Just heard about 'Superman.' It couldn't be in better hands."
He's such a classy guy — it was a great stamp of approval.
DH: We're friends with the Donners. We know Lauren.... She was up there in Vancouver with us [on "X2"], and we've stayed in touch ever since. They're film legends — and yet they live around the corner from us and like to have us over for dinner and watch movies. There's nothing more fun than that.
I know that Bryan asked Dick's permission to make this movie, and told him his idea behind the film — and if Donner was not on-board or happy with that, I don't think we'd be making the movie.
I mean, he directed "The Goonies." Nothing is cooler.
_____
READ MY LIPS: NO NEW POWERS
Q. One problem I had with the "Superman" sequels as they went along was that they kept adding ridiculous new powers to the Man of Steel's repertoire. I'm thinking specificially of that big damn cellophane "S" he threw on Non.
MD: Yes.
Q. Was there a conscious effort to pare down of that sort of thing for this film?
MD: There was never any effort to pare down his powers — but we definitely did stay away from trying to introduce any new ones — like, say, telekinetic finger rays and cellophane "S"es. His powers are being used in, I guess, a realistic fashion.
So no. No strange new abilities.
Q. No magic amnesia kiss?
MD: Yeah.
DH: We're pretty classic with the powers we're sticking to. It was more a question of what his powers are, and how can we work a story around that — rather that having our story and pulling new powers out of him.
Q. Singer had a yen for explaining every comic-book convention in his "X-Men" films — even seemingly silly elements like Magneto's helmet always had a purpose. I'm dying to see how he explains the Super-suit and the "S."
MD: Well, you know, we didn't really try to go out of our way to do that. The suit, we all agreed, has a Kryptonian origin, but we didn't go into detail about that. And as for the "S," it's definitely a family symbol.
Q. Yeah, that was pretty clearly established in the first film.
MD: In fact, I believe that was Donner's idea. And we just continued that.
DH: They aren't conventions we necessarily had to manipulate or create. I think a lot of it was there — it was just a matter of exploring it. When we see the "S," is it just something we saw on a tinfoil suit? [laughs] Was it part of the architecture somewhere? What does it mean?
Thank God there was that swath of fabric in the baby's pod [in "Superman: The Movie"]. That's the suit. He didn't make it himself.
Q. Yeah, Donner laid a lot of good groundwork. He really was the man for his time and place.
DH: He really was. And in our development of this movie, we happily echoed what he was doing.
Famously, he was handed a draft of the script in which two men tap a bald guy on the shoulder, thinking it's Lex, and he turns around and it's Kojak. That was in the script that Dick was given. And it was his work with Tom Mankiewicz that turned it into an iconic story — this giant analogy.
Q. Other than your own, what are some of the greatest superhero movies ever made?
DH: Well, "Superman: The Movie".... It's a tough question — I keep thinking of things that we haven't loved. Of course, I love what Sam Raimi's done with Spider-Man. I love the way that "Blade" carved a persona outside of the comic book.
MD: Burton's "Batman." I actually liked "Batman Begins" quite a bit, too. The first "X-Men," which I didn't actually work on. [laughs]
_____
THE NEW GODS
Q. What is it about superheroes that they lend themselves so nicely to re-makes and re-imaginings?
MD: Well, I think they're our current gods. Back in the day, they had Achilles and Hercules and all those mythological characters, and these are ours.
You can call it escapism — and I think there's an element of that — but I think it's also people looking for characters to guide us. They serve as examples. We look for characters we can shape our own lives after, whether it's Wolverine or Batman or Spider-Man or Superman.
DH: I think there's a mix of nostalgia for the characters — remembering what we liked when we were young, when we first saw them — combined with the chance to introduce those characters into a new world.
There are always stories to be told when you mix up the world of characters you know so well.
Q. Dan, what's the difference between writing a superheroic (or supervillainous) character and writing something more dramatic — for example, Sigourney Weaver's character in [Harris' 2004 writer-director effort] "Imaginary Heroes"?
DH: You know, we talked about this a lot on "X2" — and there's not really a huge difference.
The characters come out of the story you're telling, and they need to service certain things, and they have their own idiosyncrasies. But that doesn't change whether you have Superman coming back to a married Lois or Sigourney Weaver confronting the truth that her husband doesn't love her.
There's an icing on the cake in superhero movies, where people have powers — which helps us in terms of plot and making things a little more complex. But to me, what makes Superman interesting in this movie is the emotional situation he's been put in — and it's a very human situation. The fact that he's indestructible and can fly is the fun part, but the heart of the movie is emotional.
_____
JOHN OTTMAN, MEET JOHN WILLIAMS
Q. As a film-score geek, I have to ask if you've heard anything about what John Ottman is coming up with as he writes the "Superman Returns" score. I hear it owes a lot to the Williams score.
DH: Well, I've heard a lot about what John's coming up with, but I've not heard what John's coming up with....
MD: I'm a huge film-score geek also. The entire script was written with John Williams playing in the background, every day. And when I had to write a certain scene, I'd cue it up to a certain track. There's a scene with Lois and Superman on the roof of the Daily Planet, and I kept going back to three tracks: "The Terrace," "Lois and Clark" and "The Flying Sequence." Because our scene is meant to be an homage to that.
DH: Absolutely. You listen to that soundtrack, you're in that world. You're writing a Lois scene? Time for Lois' theme.
Q. Not so much "Can You Read My Mind?," however. [laughs]
MD: Not so much. As for what Ottman is doing: The main theme you don't change. So that will be intact. And other themes from the Williams score will find their way into the film at the appropriate moments — some more than others, and some updated and more contemporary. But they'll be there.
_____
NO PRESSURE!
Q. How do you handle the pressure of being the custodians of a mythological character? Does the responsibility ever get to you?
MD: Well, you always feel it, to this day. But I think being as familiar as we are with the character and being fans, in our hearts there is no fear.
If I were setting out to do a movie about a topic I was completely unfamiliar with, I'd be much more nervous — like, if I was going out to do a football film. I'm not a sports guy. If I were writing a movie about a sports figure like Babe Ruth, I'd be terrified.
But when it comes to Superman, I know his history. We all have the Donner film in common. And I know the things that need to be part of a "Superman" film — as well as all the things I've always wanted to see in a "Superman" film. It kind of wipes away the fear.
DH: It becomes day-to-day work — and the grind of getting every line as good as it can be is more stressful, immediate and urgent than the worry about what we're actually doing.
If you think about that [responsibility], or notice that every fifth car has a Superman bumper sticker.... I never really thought about that until I got home. We were all just motivated and excited by the big idea.
MD: But you feel the pressure. Some of that pressure is good, because then you know how many eyes are gonna be watching you — so there's never a time when you slack off.
You go, "A lot of people are going to see this, and unless I want my house covered in toilet paper, I'm going to make it really good."
Q. On some level, shooting in Australia might have helped, because Superman is such a fundamentally American character, you might gain a little perspective by traveling overseas.
DH: I think so. It forced us to really think about it, and not to get overwhelmed. We went to a foreign land to make something that was in our hearts. There's something very interesting about going to the middle of the Outback and re-creating Kansas — the desert, but with acres of corn and barns.
_____
'X3' STICKS to the PLAN (WE THINK)
Q. Where would the Singer-Dougherty-Harris "X3" have gone?
DH: Whew. I don't think we'd totally agreed on that ourselves — but we had a lot of ideas. It's hard to say. I wanna see the movie first.
MD: It's not like we had some thought-out outline in detail. We had ideas, but no detailed treatment.
We're still friends with a lot of the people on "X3." And funny enough, a lot of the stuff we've seen so far — surprisingly, I think they've actually accomplished quite a few of the ideas I wanted to pursue. For better or worse.
Q. Working Beast into the story, I'd imagine.
MD: More the "Dark Phoenix" stuff. Phoenix is definitely my personal favorite. I had very solid ideas as to where I think she should go — namely, the idea of Magneto using her as a weapon. And based on what I know, I think they're doing that.
That's actually kind of cool to know — that the people who are in charge of it actually know what they're doing. They're taking it in the right direction.
DH: Yeah — the biggest idea, for us, was setting up Phoenix. And the idea that in "X-Men," the war is coming. "X-Men 2," the war has begun. And in "X-Men 3": This is the war. The war is here.
And that's something that I feel bad about not being able to be a part of. It was such a payoff to the big ideas — a darker, scarier, more intense "X-Men." It looks like they've captured that.
_____
HORROR ANTHOLOGIES and DYSTOPIAN ROCK OPERAS
Q. Michael, you've said: "I just want to make one good horror film before I die." What's up with your "Trick or Treat" horror project with Stan Winston?
MD: I'm actually working on it with Bryan right now. It's an anthology horror film — kind of like "Creepshow" and "Twilight Zone." It's four short stories on Halloween night that all intertwine and criss-cross.
Q. We've haven't had a good '80s-vintage horror anthology in a while.
MD: When I sat down to write it, I didn't want to create one of these teen slasher horror films that are either over-reliant on CGI or have a guy in a mask running around slashing people. I wanted something that was full of surprises.
Q. Will you be directing?
MD: That's the idea, yeah.
Q. Tonally, what decade of horror will you be focusing on?
MD: I haven't really nailed it yet. But I do miss that late-'70s to early-'80s horror — you know, that era where you had "Alien" and "Poltergeist." Even some of the more comedic stuff, like "Gremlins" or "The Howling" and "American Werewolf."
I think we're in this era of horror right now that's very similar to the mid-'80s, where it's very dark, grungy, tortuous kind of horror — [remakes of] "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Hills Have Eyes." It's just unrelenting. And the answer to that, I think, are films like "American Werewolf" that let you laugh just a little. As terrifying as they were, they were also fun movies to watch.
Q. There's a real writer's voice in those films, as opposed to some of the more producer-driven horror projects today.
MD: They had a sense of humor. Even the first "Nightmare on Elm Street," which introduced us to that serial killer who had fun with what he was doing. It was absolutely terrifying, but there were moments that were so funny — with a dash of black comedy. That's what I miss. And that's what I'd like to do.
Q. And Dan, you may have been joking when you said you wanted to make "a big budget musical about dystopia, the apocalypse, and the death of God." But since you told IGN "I'm not joking!," I have to ask what it's about.
DH: I want to make a rock musical — that's my goal in life. It's definitely about dystopia.
There was a script I read a long time ago about the death of God. It was called "The Sky is Falling." It was about two priests who found physical proof that God had died at some point about four or five hundred years ago. And they carried this proof around in an orange fanny-pack. And because they lost their faith, they went on this killing rampage. There's this amazing scene where the two priests are sitting on the edge of the Grand Canyon, shooting down angels.
Q. That sounds like "Preacher."
DH: It's completely bizarre. It was one of those things where you read it and you knew it was never gonna be made. So that was probably on my mind at the time [I said that].
Q. The large, pretentious rock musical hasn't been revisited in far too long.
DH: What happened to the big rock musical? Pink Floyd broke up and grunge hit.... But everything comes in cycles. I'm waiting for my moment.
_____
THE HARRIS-DOUGHERTY METHOD
Q. You two have worked (or will be working) together on something like seven films. I'm curious how you split up the labor — and what you consider the secret to a longish professional partnership.
DH: The secret to a longish professional partnership is definitely not taking things personally — that it's all work.
MD: Well, at first, we were friends, which I think is key — that just kind of created a shorthand and a familiarity. I know that I can call Dan up at 11:30 at night and I won't be offending him, and when we're hanging out and being social, we can bang around some ideas. I don't know many other writing partners or how their relationships started. But we were friends first.
And we realized we had similar but different tastes and talents, which compliment each other really well. In terms of the types of films we enjoy, I'm kind of a horror/genre/sci-fi nut and Dan loves quirky family dramas, black comedies, and character pieces. So when you put those together for a "Superman" film, they work really well together.
DH: The first thing we learned on "X-Men 2," our writers' boot camp, was that nothing is precious — nothing you write is, you know, gold. Everything you write can be erased, read incorrectly, or re-written, or saved for a different script. Everything is disposable, and you need to keep on your toes, and never take anything personally. Once you accept that, it gets a lot easier, and you can exchange drafts and get back something that you love.
And for us, the way we do it is we get together in a room and we talk things through out loud. We talk structure and work it out together. And then we basically take scenes that we love — like, I'll say, "I really want this scene with Lois and Clark," and he'll say, "Well, I want the next scene with Lois and someone else" — and we go off and write in our rooms. And we e-mail them to each other, and we re-write each other, e-mail them back to each other, and re-write each other again. And at some point along the way, we start assembling the script.
And, you know, disagreements are always fun. But they're much easier to handle when we've got someone like Bryan around — when we're working for a director. We've sort of learned along the way that it's much more fun, and you get a lot more out of it, to write for a single mind — somebody who knows what they want to make.
Q. Dan, you've said, "Mike is a big horror-based person and I am a drama-based person, so things come together." Does one of you spend more time on the action and one of you more time on the love story?
MD: I think it started that way — on "X2" especially. But we taught each other a lot. By the end, Dan could say, "I want to take that action sequence," and I'd have no fear or worry.
That happened on "Superman," as well. There's an action sequence involving Kitty Kowalski that was completely Dan's invention and execution. And then there are certain dramatic beats that I kind of took over. And no matter what, we'll revise each other.
DH: There were incredible character beats and moments with Perry White that are absolutely Mike's.
MD: At first, I'd say, it was pretty evenly split: I would handle the action and spectacle stuff, and Dan would handle the emotional. But it's definitely more intertwined now.
DH: People who know us think they can go in and point out who wrote what — and they're usually off, or get it half-right.
_____
LOGAN and ENDER
Q. Is "Logan's Run" still happening after "Superman"?
MD: Yes.
DH: I think so. That's Bryan's. He's really the man behind that.
Q. Dan, you've said, "It's not a remake of the movie. It's a remake of the concept of the movie plus the book." Care to elaborate with any specifics?
DH: Well, Bryan's developing that — and you never really know which direction he's moving. Those are words that came from his mouth, originally.
MD: What Bryan's doing is similar to what he's doing with "Superman" — he's taking the concepts presented in the film and the book and doing his own spin on it. There are elements from the film he's definitely using — but at the same time, he's throwing in his own original concepts and taking things from the book, as well.
Q. Do you think the forever-in-development "Ender's Game" [to which Harris and Dougherty are attached as screenwriters] will finally happen with Wolfgang Petersen?
MD: That's a good question. Anyone's guess. Some day I think that film will be made, but I don't know under what circumstances.
DH: That's a story that's very important to me and very, very close to my heart. Nothing would make me happier than to see that movie get made.
Q. The weird thing about that book is that it grows with you. You read it as an adult, and it has a whole different resonance.
DH: Yeah. There's a whole sociopolitical layer that you don't get when you're a kid.
http://www.infocusmag.com/06june/supermanuncut.htm
How will it fly?
Superman appeals to gays. Should that be a selling point? Or could it be kryptonite?
Source: Los Angeles Times
Which Hero Has the Biggest Gay Following?
STUDIOS love magazine stories that breathlessly hype their summer popcorn movies, so you would think that Warner Bros. might have been happy with Alonso Duralde's cover story about "Superman Returns," which gushed, "Superheroes — let's face it — are totally hot."
There was a twist: Duralde's "Superman Returns" story was not in Entertainment Weekly or Newsweek or Premiere. It ran in the May 23 issue of the Advocate, the prominent national gay magazine, next to the headline: "How Gay Is Superman?"
The Man of Steel has been missing from the movies for 19 years, and now that he's scheduled to fly into the multiplex on June 28, his worries may not be limited to Lex Luthor and kryptonite. Even at a time when moviegoers and awards organizations embraced the overtly gay love story "Brokeback Mountain," there may be a different challenge for a mainstream action movie that happens to be attracting a gay following.
No one suggests that Superman in "Superman Returns" is, in fact, gay. But, as several entertainment and cultural writers have noted, superheroes hold obvious — and growing — gay appeal. In addition to being strikingly good-looking, the characters often are portrayed as alienated outsiders, typically leading double lives. In the case of Superman, the beefcake character historically has struggled with romance, all the while running around in a skin-tight suit.
At issue now is whether that gay vibe will broaden the "Superman Returns" audience, or limit it.
Warners has a lot at stake with its long-delayed attempt to breathe life into the "Superman" franchise. The studio's schedule is dominated by pricey sequels, prequels and remakes, but its first such effort this summer, "Poseidon," sank faster than the boat. And "Superman Returns," which will cost about $300 million to release with marketing costs added in, faces formidable competition from the latest installment in the blockbuster franchise "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," which opens nine days after "Superman" lands in theaters.
Beyond the Advocate cover, which features the film's star, Brandon Routh, in costume, industry blogs such as the Defamer website, which has become the online show business bible for many young industry executives, have been as obsessed with "Superman's" gay appeal as Britney Spears' parenting skills and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's new baby girl.
Defamer has posted a number of stories on how gay the "Superman Returns" posters and Topps trading cards make the character look, particularly in one trading card showing Superman literally coming out of a closet. "If Warner Bros. marketing partners like Topps aren't even going to bother pretending, why should we?" Defamer asked. "Be proud, our fabulously caped little Queer-El."
Warner Bros. declined to comment. But the studio is reaching out to some gay moviegoers. Warners has bought "Superman Returns" advertising time on Logo, a year-old digital cable channel in 20 million homes that calls itself "the channel for Gay America."
An informal poll of six veteran Hollywood marketing executives at rival studios revealed sharply divided opinions over how — or even if — "Superman's" gay attention would affect the film. Two of the executives said the focus could actually expand the film's audience, much as gay moviegoers have responded to the "X-Men" superhero series, which has been praised for its metaphorical plots about acceptance. The first two "X-Men" movies were directed by Bryan Singer, the openly gay filmmaker who also made "Superman Returns." Singer did not respond to an interview request.
But four of the movie marketing executives, all of whom declined to speak on the record, said gay "Superman Returns" interest presented two potential box-office problems. First, teenage moviegoers, especially those in conservative states, might be put off by a movie carrying a gay vibe; among some teens, these executives agreed, saying something "is gay" is still the ultimate put-down. Second, the attention threatens to undermine the film's status as a hard-edged action movie, making it feel softer, more romantic, and thus less interesting to young ticket buyers who crave pyrotechnics.
Though "Brokeback Mountain's" gay love story proved to be a Hollywood breakthrough, unequivocally selling a ton of tickets and winning three Oscars, it was essentially an adult drama, which courts a very different audience than the high-octane action crowd that "Superman" needs to attract.
Bob Witeck, whose Washington marketing and public relations firm specializes in campaigns aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual consumers, said an issue for any firm is to entice one constituency without alienating another.
Movie studios, Witeck said, "would love nothing more than to have buzz in [gay and lesbian] neighborhoods where people go to the movies a lot." But a company pitching something like beer narrowly to gay and lesbian drinkers faces a possible backlash. "If you're the gay beer, you're not everybody's beer," said Witeck, whose firm is not working on "Superman Returns."
Warners knows from its own history that too many gay associations can play a role in derailing a big summer movie, particularly one involving an established superhero.
In addition to drawing poor reviews and generating weak word-of-mouth, the studio's 1997 summer release "Batman & Robin" was criticized for having too much homoerotic appeal, including nipples on Batman's suit. George Clooney, the film's star, has joked, "I could have played him straight but I didn't. I made him gay."
The film barely grossed $100 million in domestic theaters, and Warners has said privately that "Batman & Robin" turned out so poorly that it nearly killed off the Caped Crusader franchise (the series was resuscitated with last year's "Batman Begins," a global blockbuster).
Despite the provocative headline, the Advocate story didn't suggest that Superman was gay or that the film contained any subplot about an implicit or overt gay relationship; Warners has not yet shown the movie to journalists and has kept its plot under wraps.
Rather Duralde, the magazine's arts and entertainment editor, wrote that "the iconography of superheroes definitely pushes a button or two with many gay men."
Duralde said in an interview that he tried to speak with filmmaker Singer for his "Superman" story but was rebuffed. "We got a no, for whatever reason. It's anybody's guess," Duralde said.
Despite the gay-branding issues "Superman" might face, there are a number of hit pop culture products that have benefited greatly from gay and lesbian fans.
The 1990s TV series "Xena: Warrior Princess" had a loyal and large following among lesbians (which the show courted) and the rock band Queen maintained a huge audience of young straight males despite the gay imagery of its name, music and stage shows. In comics, it has become increasingly common to not only create new gay characters but also to rework the mythology of long-time heroes to make them gay, as is the case with both Batwoman and Colossus.
Fox's "X-Men" movies, with their themes of a mutant race fighting for respect and acceptance, are also a study in how a studio can find a significant audience in both the gay and straight world.
"Mutant/queer connections," Robert Urban wrote in an article about "X-Men" for the gay media website www.afterelton.com, "abound in the films' plot premises, underlying themes, and storyline. Even though none of the individual 'X-Men' characters are actually 'gay' in the movies, as a whole the mutants clearly function as a metaphor for queers."
In the second film in the series, the character Iceman essentially comes out to his family as a mutant. In the most recent "X-Men" sequel, there's a character named Angel whose mutant status is discovered by his father, who then rejects him for being different.
"Yes, it's a popular series with gays, and I'm thrilled," said Lauren Shuler Donner, who served as a producer on all three "X-Men" films. "But they are also popular with everybody who at some point in their life has felt like an outsider."
Urban, a gay musician and writer, said in an interview that "Superman" faces a different challenge than "X-Men."
" 'Superman' is a beefcake movie. 'X-Men' is not," he said. "If you have too much beefcake out there, the 18- to 34-year-old [straight] men may think, 'It's not cool. It's not us.' "
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defamer.com%2Fimages%2F2006%2F05%2Fsuperman-closet.jpg&hash=99213dd06d99f93e9586fca3766fe88889163a8c)
Singer was man of steel in making 'Superman'
By Martin A. Grove, Hollywood Reporter
With Fourth of July falling on a Tuesday, Warner Bros. is smart to be making the most of what the calendar offers by rescheduling its "Superman Returns" launch from Friday, June 30 to Wednesday, June 28.
The new release date gives the Bryan Singer film a seven-day period in which to get off the ground. Considering that Fox's "X3" (which Singer, of course, was originally going to direct, but then left to make "Superman") grossed nearly $123 million for just four days over Memorial Day weekend, "Superman" could enjoy out-of-this-world returns for its seven-day "opening weekend." Its Wednesday kickoff will generate heat-of-opening-day ticket sales and get word-of-mouth going. Sunday and Monday should be like two extra Saturday nights since most people won't have to get up to go to work Monday or Tuesday.
"Superman," from Warner Bros. Pictures in association with Legendary Pictures, is directed by Singer, produced by Jon Peters, Singer and Gilbert Adler and executive produced by Chris Lee, Thomas Tull and Scott Mednick. Its screenplay is by Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris and its story is by Singer & Dougherty & Harris. Starring are newcomer Brandon Routh as the Man of Steel, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Eva Marie Saint, Parker Posey, Kal Penn, Sam Huntington and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. The film is based upon characters created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster and published by DC Comics.
For some insights into how "Superman Returns" reached the screen after many years in development, I recently spoke to Singer, who characterized his film as being "a mixture of a unique take and a nostalgic take. Like my treatment of the 'X-Men' but with, perhaps, even a larger sensitivity because of the wider and longer history of 'Superman' I felt an obligation to maintain certain things that would stimulate our collective memory of who that character is.
"In other words, looking at some of the architecture from the '40s for the design, even though it's a contemporary film, as a nod to the comic book and looking very much at Richard Donner's 1978 film ('Superman,' starring Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeve, which grossed over $300 million worldwide) as a springboard and, most importantly, maintaining the character of Superman as a virtuous, idealistic character. The modern aspect, the unique aspect, is the world that he returns to -- Lois Lane is engaged to another person (and) has a child with this other person -- and with his feelings still intact for Lois Lane how he navigates through this almost insurmountable set of circumstances."
Asked about his departing "X3" to make "Superman" instead, Singer told me, "I've wanted to do it for years. I always have. In fact, back at the time when they were going to make a 'Superman vs. Batman' movie, my writer Mike Dougherty and I were discussing, 'What would you do? Who would be the villain? I guess Batman would be the villain, but he can't be that bad a villain because he's a hero.' It was frustrating because I had such reverence for 'Superman.' I'd been a fan since the George Reeves television series (and was a fan of) the Richard Donner movie."
The initial concept, he explained, "and my blessing to go forward was born of a conversation I had with Richard Donner in Austin, Texas, while I was promoting 'X-Men 2.' It was about three years ago at a Fox Home Video conference with Lauren (Lauren Shuler-Donner, a producer of all three 'X-Men' movies) and Dick. The three of us were in my hotel room and I said, 'What would you think if I did a 'Superman' movie?' And Richard Donner said, 'I think that would be a fabulous idea. What would you do? Would you remake my film?' And I said, 'No. I think it's a classic and in a strange way I'd 'sequelize' it. I'd have him be missing somewhere.' Where, I didn't know. 'And he'd come back and things will have changed.'
"I sort of pitched that general idea to him and he was very, very excited about it and his excitement about it gave me a kind of personal internal permission to seek it out further and think about it further. I had not resolved a deal. I was with Fox on 'X-Men 3.' I already had a previous deal on another picture developing at Warner Bros. so I had a familiarity with Warner Bros. (Then) the director fell out of 'Superman' and Warner Bros. was willing to take a lot of development -- nine years of development -- and a lot of dollars and sort of toss them away and write them off and go with this new idea, which I ultimately developed with Dan and Mike, my writers. It happened very quickly. I think we developed the initial concept over a long weekend in Hawaii and presented it to Warner Bros. and closed a deal in about 72 hours. That was right after Fourth of July weekend '04."
In 2003, Singer had read the "Superman" screenplay that Warner Bros. had in development at the time. "It wasn't bad. It just wasn't the story I wanted to tell. It was sort of an origin story. It sort of retold the 1978 film in a different (way). I felt the problem with that was that the first half felt very much like (the storyline from the TV series about the young Clark Kent/Superman) 'Smallville' -- not in a bad way, but young people are familiar enough with that. And to retread that in a more expensive fashion" wasn't what Singer wanted to do. "We show a little of that. There's a little nod to Clark growing up on the farm in this movie, but it's not a focus of the picture. I didn't want to retell the origin. Even before I had read this script I knew what I wanted to do with Superman. So I passed on it then.
"The director who got involved fell out eventually and then this happened before the Fourth of July of '04 and I presented the notion of doing it to Dan and Mike, my writers who had worked with me on 'X-Men 2,' when we were in Hawaii at a wedding. All three of us were there and we talked about it. We were at that time developing 'X-Men 3.' We were talking about it. There was no real deal for it, but we were talking about it. And then I just presented this notion and it kind of infected us through this long weekend in Hawaii. About the time we got back we had most of the treatment written. We finished it up and then I pitched it to (Warner Bros. president and chief operating officer) Alan Horn a few days later on a Friday and by Tuesday of the following week we had a deal and it was done. It had to be done kind of quickly to allow everyone at Fox to be able to do what they needed to do to get 'X3' off the ground and not inhibit that process."
Singer was replaced on "X3" by Brett Ratner, who had about six weeks to prepare for shooting. Singer didn't have much time before having to start pre-production on "Superman." "It was pretty aggressive. The whole thing was from Fourth of July 2004 to now," he said. "So the script development and writing and the pre-visualization sequences all had to happen very quickly. It was extremely rapid. Fortunately, Warner Bros. had already secured the stage space at Fox Studios in Sydney so we already knew we had that entire studio facility. I had made some commercials (in Australia) years ago, but I had never done a feature there. I had toured the studios. We just cranked on the script and also began the casting process and designs. I brought in my production designer (Guy Hendrix Dyas) and really just started (working). I set up an office at Warner Bros. and expanded through this entire building and started casting and scouting. It's been non-stop ever since right through to today."
Although Singer's been immersed in "Superman" for about two years now, he noted, "I've also been involved in other things. I produced a mini-series for the Sci-Fi Network, which we shot in South Africa about the Bermuda Triangle. That six hour mini-series was shot while I was I was in Sydney, but I was able to supervise my aspect of it from Sydney. And then my TV show 'House' took a place in-between 'X-Men 2' and 'Superman.' I was sort of shepherding (it) because I directed the pilot for that show. And then I also produced a documentary on the history of Superman from the character's inception all the way to our present movie for A&E and Warner Home Video. I was involved in these other projects simultaneously while being immersed in the movie so it was a real juggling act, particularly being in Sydney with sleep and time zones and Africa with the mini-series and Los Angeles. It was a pretty odd time. I don't know if I'd squeeze so many things into two years again, but they worked out."
Asked how he works when he's directing, Singer replied, "If I'm directing scenes involving action or stunts or visual effects I will storyboard it. I work with storyboard artists on a sequence. They will draw out the sequence based on my telling of the story or based on how I pitch it to them and discuss it with them. Then I look back at the storyboards and alter them so they're ready to transform into a pre-vis animatic, which is a computer animated (visual that's) almost a cartoon of the event. And that cartoon or pre-vis, as it's called, is a way to see how the scene flows and also is a guide to how the scene's going to be executed -- whether it involves visual effects, stunts, pyrotechnics or practical effects with the main actors, themselves, depending on how I'm going to do it. It's a really remarkable tool.
"When Steven Spielberg made 'Jurassic Park' (released in 1993) they did sort of a stop-motion animation of the whole dinosaur sequence so that when they came to the computer animation, the physical model and the actual interaction with real actors they'd know what they were doing. We've carried this forward using computers. There's a team of animators that sit about 20 feet from my office and all day long they're creating these sequences. And my writers have an office directly next to mine. So as the script is evolving I can walk into their offices and I can walk 10 feet further and a team of animators are actually crafting the action sequences on the computers and I can see where they are at various stages. It's all done in a pretty contained area. And that (is what) we use as a model to execute the action."
The script, he added, "is ever evolving. I don't rehearse with actors. I just never have. You know, on 'The Usual Suspects' I scheduled myself one day of rehearsal with Kevin Spacey and Chazz Palminteri and then Chazz got something in his eye -- like his contact lens got stuck in a funny place. I forced him to go to the hospital to have it dealt with because it was the day before shooting and I didn't want him to injure his eye. He did (go to have it looked at) and fortunately he was alright. But that was it. I think I have this fear that if I rehearse something and I get it really great in rehearsal and I don't recapture that same thing that I achieved in rehearsal on the set I will destroy myself trying to recreate the moment I got in rehearsal and it'll end up being less vibrant, less spontaneous and more frustrating for me. At a time when there are so many other elements involved in making these large visual effects films the prep worked is so elaborate that to even take time to rehearse would be difficult.
"There are certain scenes I remember in 'X-Men 1' where the scenes weren't really working and I brought the actors in on a weekend and we sort of talked out the scenes and tried to see what was not working about them. I got them to sort of do a quasi-rehearsal. That's the last time I can remember ever doing that. And sometimes we burn through some film when a certain actor arrives. I remember when Hugh Jackman arrived on the set for 'X-Men 1' figuring out the character (and) when Kevin Spacey arrived on the set of 'Superman' getting the tone of Lex Luthor. You know, you burn through some film -- or, in this case, digital tape -- figuring that stuff out. But I prefer to do it that way than have rehearsal time. I may change that on a different film. But even when I directed the pilot for 'House,' which was all very intensive dialogue, we did a read-through but there was no rehearsal."
Looking back at his greatest challenges during production, Singer pointed out that, "Dealing with water is always (difficult). We deal with water in this movie a bit and that was something I had not done before. It was like my first foray into that and it gave me a new level of respect for James Cameron as a director. It's weird -- and I didn't deal with it much -- but when you deal with any kind of water or tank work because of issues of safety it is truly time consuming. Again, we did nothing like what (Cameron's) done, but you're saying to yourself, 'Never again, never again' or 'I want to do a whole movie on the water. I want to lick this thing.' It's weird. You say you don't want to do it, but then you get the bug and you want to. And I'm a 'Jaws' fan. That was one of the first daunted by the ocean experiences. So (shooting on the water) was an interesting experience, something new that I was learning to deal with.
"We're doing some things that haven't been done regarding human animation. Superman flies, but unlike Spider-Man he has a cape and his face is uncovered so you've got hair and flesh and these things that are exposed. But how do we push the envelope there? When we use animation we do something we call a 'cyber scan' of Brandon and are able to reproduce him right down to the pores on his tongue and the fibrous hairs on his ears. In 1978 the tagline for 'Superman The Movie' was, 'You will believe a man can fly.' Well, at that time, using those conventional mechanical effects without rig removal wires they convinced us. And we have to do the same (today). We use computers to paint out wires and cranes and things like that. Back in 1978, they couldn't do that. They just had to avoid them with light and tricks. It was really an astonishing achievement during that time."
When we spoke, Singer was coming down to the wire finishing "Superman." "I've got a bunch of things going on," he said, referring to items that by now are either done or under control. "We're finishing recording the score. I have one more cue to do. I started my final mix so I go in and listen to sections of the film that the sound (is finished on). We've been pre-mixing for the last month and a half, but we've started our final mix so I'll start listening to sounds come together with a picture. And visual effects, visual effects, visual effects. Every day, new visual effects are (finished and we're) dropping them in, putting them in context, stepping back and looking at them. And while doing that, trying to stay on top of the global brand managing of the character, which is a whole other industry that you don't have with ordinary films. Everything from our Internet presence to our tie-ins with major corporations. Those are all things that I'm keenly involved in because I want to protect the image of the character and yet get it out there."
Did he do anything special during production to generate material for Warner Home Video to use when "Superman" ultimately is released in DVD? "We've done a few things," Singer replied. "We've done these really wonderful web logs, which have allowed fans to get on the Internet. They're on SupermanReturns. com and BlueTights.net, which have enabled fans to sort of have an eye into the production. They're kind of whimsical and fun and some of that documented material will be on the DVD. There's something I like about making-of experiences that are little movies in themselves. I think there's a kind of theater that happens during the making of a film that if it's portrayed correctly can be really interesting -- like 'Hearts of Darkness,' the making of 'Apocalypse Now.' It's sort of a scary version of that. So there will be a lot of that (making-of) material.
"I think we're going to something called 'The In-Movie Experience' where you'll be able to be watching the movie and then instantly go to making-of footage. It's sort of the next evolution in running commentaries. Instead of just hearing the filmmakers or the actors talk over the scenes you'll be able to leap in and experience the making of the scenes and experience what we call 'B Roll.' You'll be able to leap to it right in the middle of watching the movie. My hope is that people experience the movie first and then go back and do this not do (it first). I don't know about the first release of the DVD, but there's a sequence I cut from the movie, a pretty significant sequence, and that sequence will appear at some point on (a DVD edition of the movie). It's kind of a fun look into Superman's journey off the Earth (into space that) I didn't use it in the movie. It might be on the DVD. I haven't decided yet."
In exploring the ins and outs of how Singer likes to work, I asked what aspect of moviemaking he's most passionate about. "What do I enjoy the most? It's throughout the process," he replied. "I believe a film is written three times. Once on the page. Once on the set. And again in the editing room. I think during all these times of crafting a movie you have moments where a great idea comes. Either it comes from someone else or myself, but whenever the idea happens, whenever it's presented or I have it, it's like a rush of adrenalin -- a rush of good energy that comes over you. It's like lightning in a bottle. And you have it for your movie."
Thinking about that, he added, "I always go back to 'Jaws' and how I believe Steven Spielberg must have felt after his last take of Robert Shaw delivering that amazing monologue about the S.S. Indianapolis and saying, 'Wow! I have that moment in my movie. I have Robert Shaw delivering that scene in my movie.' And sometimes it's after you shoot it, after you shoot the moment. Sometimes it's when the idea just comes to you or someone presents the idea to you. It's those moments. And they can be through the writing, through the shooting -- on the set when an actor does something or you come up with something right there -- or in the editing where your editor says, 'Hey, look what I did,' and you're like, 'Aw! You get a save-the-film pin.'
"That's my little expression. When someone has a revolutionary idea that actually elevates the film a notch they get 'a pin.' It's not a real pin. It's just an expression. But to us in our creative group -- a lot of these folks have been with me for a long time making films, my crew and collaborators -- it means something to us."
Reflecting on how "Superman" differs from his previous movies, Singer observed, "The one thing I could say (about that) is the romantic nature of this film. This is different than my 'X-Men' films. This is not to dissuade any of the male audience or any of the action filmgoers, who'll have plenty of that, but it could be also called my first chick flick. It's a kind of modern romance in a way played out by very nostalgic characters."
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 16, 2005, 06:30:18 PM
Before 'Superman Returns', TV Documentary To Air
Director Bryan Singer has called upon documentary maker Kevin Burns -- not to be confused with fellow documentary maker Ken Burns -- to make a TV documentary about the origins and evolution of Superman. Burns has made a number of documentaries about Hollywood subjects, including Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood and Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. The plan is to complete the new film and put it on the air before the scheduled June 30, 2006 opening of Warner Brothers' Superman Returns, then to package it as an "extra" in the DVD package later in the year.
Reminder: This airs tonight on A&E for those interested:
Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman® Rated: TVPG
Running Time: 120 Minutes
Upcoming Airings:
Monday, June 12 @ 8pm/7C
Tuesday, June 13 @ 12am/11C
Here's the story behind the phenomenon of Superman, the most merchandised and imitated superhero of them all. Through interviews with the key creative talents responsible for seven decades of thrilling Superman adventures, we'll follow the Man of Steel's path from Depression-era comic book hero to George Reeves's TV portrayal in the 50s, Christopher Reeve's movies in the 70s and 80s, and the TV shows Lois and Clark and Smallville. There'll even be a sneak preview of the new film, Superman Returns, to be released this summer.
Bryan Singer Not Interested in a Super Sequel?
When casting for a big budget blockbuster-hopeful, it is not at all unusual for studios to lock up all of the major actors with sequel deals in the original contract. It is no surprise, therefore, that the cast of Superman Returns all have multi-picture deals with the studio. One key member of the team, however, may not be interested in returning for another film -- director Bryan Singer. It isn't nearly as imperative to return the director, as fans mostly only pay attention to what they can see on the screen, but Singer is seen as a valuable asset to the comic book film community after he built the successful X-Men franchise.
Singer has suggested he will take the franchise "one at a time," saying he and the Suits are currently discussing sequel possibilities but have yet to make any decisions. It wouldn't surprise anyone to learn that one -- or both -- sides are waiting to learn the financial success of the first before committing to the partnership for a second time. Singer sums up his feelings thusly: "I have to take a mental break and actually not have any schedule demands. I don't vacation well, so I'll probably want to go back to at some point, but that's a potentially huge movie and I'm not ready to dive into it right now."
I was a bit surprised to discover that this is getting really great reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. There aren't that many reviews, but they're pretty much all very enthusiastic.
3-D gives "Superman" added depth in Imax
Bryan Singer was gushing about some in-your-face Smallville corn. "Look at that! Oh, look at the corn." The director of "Superman Returns," wearing plastic 3-D glasses, was sitting in an empty Imax theater at Universal City a few days ago where he saw his own movie in an unexpected way.
"Superman Returns" opens June 28 in standard-screen theaters — but there's a version with 20 minutes of 3-D footage that will open in more than 115 Imax theaters, making it by far the widest release in the history of those king-sized screens. It will also become the first Hollywood film to be shown at the Smithsonian Institution's Imax theater in Washington.
There's some element of surprise in all of this: Singer and his crew did not film their movie with multiple cameras (the traditional way to attain the 3-D illusion). Instead, Imax Corp. tech teams took Singer's footage and created an after-the-fact 3-D quality by adding digital "shadows" that mimic planes of depth.
Earlier this year, the Imax people sent Singer a trailer that had been 3-D-ified and he was immediately on board. Last Friday, he got his second taste with the Universal City screening of scenes such as Superman rescuing a crashing, crumbling jetliner and Clark Kent bounding through cornfields on his own Kansas homestead.
How did it look? Singer was thrilled but others attending the screening were put off by a distracting blurring effect that crops up when the action crosses the screen at high speed. Still, some sequences — such as that plummeting plane — have an undeniable gee-whiz factor. Hollywood is hoping that in the year to come that sense of wonder will keep people munching popcorn at theaters instead of joining the stay-at-home parade of DVD buyers.
Singer was clearly a fan. After the screening, he was eager to call his director pal, James Cameron, a big proponent of 3-D and Imax, to chat about the new process. Singer also talked about adding some unique footage to the Imax version — restoring some footage to the early part of the film (it showed Superman on the gutted husk of Krypton) that might be especially dramatic with the visual effect.
And how will viewers know when the 3-D scenes are on? An Imax official said there would be a visual alert flashed on screen (such as a pair of green glasses in the corner) but Singer said there's a more intuitive cue. "Pretty much when Clark Kent takes his glasses off," Singer said, "you put yours on."
I'm absolutely going to see this on Imax. It's about the only way I can make myself excited for this movie.
I went and saw Batman Begins on the Imax screen, and it's definitely an impressive experience. The only downside to it (besides my getting there late and having to sit way off to the side of the screen) is that all the little scratches and hairs and whatnot on the reel are VERY noticeable when projected sixty feet high. A fly went in front of the projector a few times and made a shadow the size of a Mini Cooper.
all these tv spots i'm seeing are hella-spoilerful. great though.
saw goblet of fire on imax and it was great.
if there's one movie that should be on imax, it's superman
Quote from: Ghostboy on May 02, 2006, 05:40:40 PM
Amazing. My interest in this film suddenly dropped about 90%.
Amazing. Yesterday, I ate my own words, and they were fucking delicious.
I have very little personal connection to Superman (a la RK), aside from the pair of pajamas I had from the age of 6 to8. And I fucking loved this movie. I shed many a tear. Bryan Singer, I love you.
best...news....ever. i've got my tix for tues at 10.
Quote from: Ghostboy on June 24, 2006, 05:08:21 AM
aside from the pair of pajamas I had from the age of 6 to8.
hahah, man my biggest connection to superman is actually a comic i was reading around the same age, actually i was 6 it's one of my earliest memories. anyway it was in spanish and the deal is that superman is going into outer space and something bad happens cos he's in an astronaut suit and his FACE BURNS UP! i got really scared and i cried. now i'm not sure if it was superman who burned up, but the image is seared in my memory..
Great, GB...
I have been pso psyched about this movie, but my excitement has tripled today after reading all the great reviews then coming here and seeing that you liked it.
I was obsessed when I was a little kid. I loved the movies and the cartoon series. Had a yellow pajama with the superman logo on it.
I adopted a strayed cat that stayed in my apartment when I was 6. the cat ran away the weekend after. I named her Clark. But then realized that Clark was a human name, so I changed her name to Meow Meow Clark.
You could have named her Clark Kat. Or Lois Feline. Or Lex Luth-purr.
I did not speak English back then.
Pros:
Parker Posey
James Marsden learning how to act
The kid didn't have many lines
Cons:
Fell asleep
Kate Bosworth = bland
No lines for Kumar
Winner:
Kevin Motherfuckin Spacey
mostly loved it. routh is great. lois needs bangs. lex's stuff could've been stronger. i could probably get pretty nit picky with it, but overall its pretty great.
It exceeded my expectations. I could have sat there watching for another 30 minutes. Even the little things that bugged me were still utilized as well as possible.
Kate Bosworth (who does indeed need bangs) lacked Margot Kidder's sass but she was good enough to make me forget that she's 14 years old.
Parker Posey's one moment to shine redeemed her being a low-rent Miss Teschmacher for the rest of the movie.
I'm sure that ALL of Kal Penn's dialogue was Otis-esque and ended up on the cutting room floor, because they wouldn't have made as big of a deal of him signing on to do it if he was only just there to be the "hey, THAT guy!" in the movie (a la Simon Pegg in Mission: Impossible III).
I HATE when they put kids in movies like this but this time it worked. The kid was neither syrupy-sweet cute nor charmingly precocious. He was just a regular douchebag kid, nothing special about him. Though the piano playing was irritating.
Spacey.
And I take back every snide remark I've made about Brandon "Who the fuck is Brandon Routh?" Routh. He is the second coming of Christopher Reeve.
Pretty outstanding. Might have even liked it more than Batman Begins.
Ebert is less than impressed.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009
But I'll still see it.
" It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot."
Wrong.
It's almost hilarious how fucking retarded Ebert has been lately. I wish he would retire so I could enjoy the memory of agreeing with him without it being spoiled by his latest shit. He needs to be removed as a "cream of the crop" critic.
Here was my initial reaction:
This movie, for the most part, got it right. It is the best sequel to a movie made almost thirty years ago that only takes place five years later that's ever been done.
It's so true to the Donner version that nostalgia took over and kept me blind to what may have been kind of big flaws in the film.
Routh really emulates Reeves... no, he's not as good, but since Reeves was one of the best casting jobs EVER, you couldn't expect him to be as good.
I was slightly disappointed in Lois Lane, but everyone else did a fantastic job.
Without spoiling any plot here, I'll just say that at points, the movie got so involved in staying true to the original that it was just repeating it. This didn't bother me very much, but as of right now, this is my largest "complaint" (other than a certain plot point I had a problem with that I won't mention here).
I'm going to DEFINITELY see it again because I loved this too much to really know if it was that good.
Clearly his colon did the writing in his heyday.
Ebert is an idiot... that was the first thing I thought they did right
*SPOILERS*
Getting the kid to show who he was, but thats it. They would have fucked it if he was the one saving the day or doing something else 'super'.
*END SPOILERS*
Anyways, I loved every minute of it. I have no complaints, and I admire Singer for doing such a great job under so much pressure. This wasnt just a remake, or a sequel... it was a very big deal and he nailed it. I thought Brandon Routh was excellent. I cannot compare him with Reeves, because I also dont compare Spacey with Hackman. The point I believe is to show how good this guy was and he didnt dissapoint. He had a lot to prove and he did it, and I think he will be a good Superman next time when he is already a star (kinda like Vinny Chase after Aquaman maybe).
The rest of the cast was good. Mardsen is always the sucker, poor guy. I loved it... going to see it again but definetly IMAX.
Quote from: Lucid on June 29, 2006, 02:00:51 AM
I was pleasantly surprised by Kate Bosworth.
I loved her. And I think the whole love triangle was what really sold the movie for me. How great was James Marsden?
So Superman has two weaknesses: Kryptonite and feelings.
What a great job Singer and crew did of getting you into the mindset of Superman. I loved the movie, but I think mostly for making Superman more human and emotional than all of the other characters. I don't get Ebert's qualms. Here's a guy that wants love and a life and a past, but can't really obtain any of it. His heroics don't come from ego or vanity but from the shear weight of the world's need. So he takes off on a pilgrimage, half to escape the ever increasing burden and half to see if in this entire universe he really and truly is alone. He spends five years isolated in the cosmos, no interaction, no one to talk to, simply him and his thoughts and, naturally, all of the doubts those thoughts lead to.
And when he discovers there's nothing else out there for him but earth he returns and finds that they've moved on to. Even those he thought never would have gone on with their lives. Worse, they've justified it fairly well.
And here enters a question I entertained: did Superman intend to come back and simply lead a normal life as Clark? When he returns he tells Martha, "Don't worry. I buried it" (referring to the ship of course). He's been to his former world's graveyard and paid his respects. Being back on the farm reminds him what being human felt like. He returns to his job and his supposed friends only to a lukewarm reception. But is Lois wasn't on the plane would he have gone to save it? It really seemed like he wrestled with that decision before choosing to act. Of course the argument for this line of questioning is that he was wearing his suit under his clothes, but I really wonder how much of that part was story and how much it was to get the shot of him parting his Oxford to show the S. If that shot wasn't in there I think it would really speak to him trying to lead a normal life.
So now he's back and out to the world. Most everyone loves him except those that he loves the most. He is rejected, returns to the only place that remains his and finds it desecrated -- robbed of his past, his link to his father, his touch with anything he used to be. There was just so much that allowed you access to what he was feeling.
I also like the love triangle part and above all, that Superman doesn't play fair. The second time he sees Lois it's to rekindle their previous history. He takes her flying again and tells her the reason he left. Then, in truly dickish move, he flies her right passed her house so she can compare what being with him and being with Richard is like. See the plane? Noisey, clanky and cumbersome. See what it'd be like with me? Peaceful, graceful and natural. That's the best cockblock of all time and he pulls it out of the hat right at the beginning.
There's a lot to this movie. I have to divide the aspects of it in my mind and talk about them one at a time. The emotional baggage was definitely my favorite part though. Can't wait for more.
Estimated box office result from yesterday's opening with $21,050,000, its 8th in the all time wednesday's b.o.
It's crazy when 21mil. doesn't seem that high for an opening day.
The top ten.
1 Spider-Man 2 $40,442,604
2 LOTR: ROTK $34,450,834
3 Episode I - TPM $28,542,349
4 Passion of the Christ $26,556,573
5 LOTR: TTT $26,159,972
6 Matrix Revolutions $24,311,365
7 War of the Worlds $21,256,483
8 Superman Returns $21,050,000
9 Jurassic Park III $19,024,360
10 Men in Black II $18,599,621
True... people are gonna talk about that as dissapointing... but this movie has to rock. If a piece of shit like X-Men did so well with horrible reviews and everybody hating it, this so far has had better reviews and everybody loves it. I hope it does well mainly because Superman is the best superhero ever, and Singer deserves a lot of credit after his awesome work.
watching the film, as much as i enjoyed it, i can see that its not going to be a huge hit. my guess is more along the lines of Kong backlash as far as its reception and BO. :(
I thought it would be a huge hit. It's Superman, for Christ's sake! We'll see how it fares this weekend.
Saw Superman, and thought it was great. Good cgi, and plenty of those 'hero moments'. I thought Brandon Routh was great, as Kent and Superman. Bosworth laked the spark of Margot Kidder. And Spacey was fine as Luthor, his overthetop bits were only in the trailer.
Here's hoping it makes enough return to warrent a Superman 4 and Singer stays as director. We don't want another situation like X3, we all know how great that movie turned out.
Quote from: hackspaced on June 28, 2006, 12:45:16 AM
Parker Posey's one moment to shine redeemed her being a low-rent Miss Teschmacher for the rest of the movie.
I kept expecting/wanting Lex to just belt out "Ms. Teschmacher!!!"
sequel title idea:
Superman Leaves and Returns Again Just to See If People Remember Him And Then Leaves Again, And He Keeps Going Back and Forth Like That Forever: Banky Syndrome
I'm surprised by how well this movie is being accepted. The music and opening titles sequences are the same, but the new one is nothing like the original Superman movies. The originals (especially the first two) were great adventure stories with the main ingrediants of comedy and romance. The new Superman movie is another over done CGI festival of elaborate action sequences. In the first Superman movie, there were only two significat action scenes. The first was the introduction of Superman with his night of rescues and the second was the rescue of Lois Lane and others in the earthquake. The second only had a few scenes as well. Superman Returns supplies enough action to cover all four of the original movies.
The main ingrediant in the original movies, comedy, is lost here. People forget that in the original movies most of the characters had a comedic slant. In this movie only a few do. None of the characters are funny and worst, no one is charming. Its impossible to ask Routh and Bosworth to replace what Reeve and Kidder had. Well, Bryan Singer does ask them to be that by making this film a direct sequel. I think Singer cast both actors to dip into the young gene pool of Hollywood so making the sequels would be easier. He casted Posey Parker as Luthor's girl on the side but he should have casted her as Lois Lane if he wanted an actress closer to the sensibilities of Margot Kidder.
Maybe Brian Singer was trying to change the series. If he was, he made a very dull film. This CGI world has yet to truly sell me on a film. Over edited action sequences and stale characterizations should be crimalized. In the end Roger Ebert was right. I didn't read his review before I saw the movie. I just rewatched the first two Superman movies again. I still love them for their charm and watchability. I think I've seen them over twenty times now. I also think I'm done with the Bryan Singer interpretation of Superman.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 30, 2006, 01:39:59 AM
I'm surprised by how well this movie is being accepted...he made a very dull film.
Sorry for editing your quote, GT, but this is how I felt. I was thrilled by the title sequence, if only for the theme/march and the credits. After that I was bored. There is no other way to put it. Kevin Spacey was flat and managed to make Gene Hackman look even greater (wasn't sure that was possible, but K. Spacey pulled it off). Routh did what he was asked to do, which I suppose is okay. It just didn't work for me.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 30, 2006, 01:39:59 AM
The main ingrediant in the original movies, comedy, is lost here.
Exactly. This film comes to a screeching halt between each action sequence...and the action sequences aren't enough to carry it. I certainly don't have Modage-New World distaste for this movie, but it does feel strange to me that the vast majority of posters are raving about it.
I knew GT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Man) wouldn't like this movie, but it's funny that his complaint is the exact OPPOSITE of most of the complaints I'm hearing.
There really wasn't that much action in the movie. I agree fully with GT that Parker would have made a better Lane, but I think that everyone else did such a great job with their roles that it was easily forgiven.
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
I knew GT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Man) wouldn't like this movie, but it's funny that his complaint is the exact OPPOSITE of most of the complaints I'm hearing.
Haha, but I'm the one asking for more heart in this movie!
I'll stand by my opinion. Of course I expected you to come back with a remark to my post, but I definitely expected something more brutal. You're such a softie these days, RK!
I can't really figure out how I feel about Superman Returns yet. The nods to the original made me smile, yet also irritated me. I guess that is how this film made me feel. Superman Returns seems to spend too much of its lengthy runtime referencing the old film, that it has a hard time establishing itself on it's own two legs. It took me awhile to start enjoying the movie, but once I did I found myself enjoying the original scenes more so then the self referential ones.
I discussed the movie with a friend and he talked about how he has problem with the "brooding" aspects of the story, contrasted to the "boy scout" Superman that he knew and loved. While I understand his complaint, I kind of enjoyed seeing Superman from a different angle. At the same time, the movie spends so much time referencing the old one that the character ends up in between our nostalgic hero and the one portrayed in 2006.
When I first started watching the movie, I thought it was a 3 star film (out of 5). By the end I was thinking it was up to 4, but now I'm starting to think it is closer to 3 again. It just had a difficult time establishing itself properly in a continium of old/new and fun/serious.
Honestly, I felt that they should have gone with the title, "How Superman Got His Groove Back," as opposed to "Returns," because now it's just a total ripoff of Batman. In every way. Except only the title. But I thought it was a good movie, definitely the movie epic of the summer. If it had opened in Feburary or something, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much. And besides some idiots in the theatre (moronic teenage girls who probably only came to see Supe's buldging package made the most mind-numbingling redundant comments like, "THAT'S A HARD EYE." Yeah, that's great, kid) I enjoyed myself.
Good:
-Finally a Superhero film without loads of angst. I felt that Superman was very solemn in handling his issues, which I respected yo.
-Good SFX but honestly, even after a quarter century, some of that blue screen flying still looks cheesy and fake. But w/e. It all looked very expensive. And I was somewhat impressed.
-Spacey. From the previews, I thought he would profoundly screw up the role, but I guess they just decided to show the worst overacting in the previews. He was a good Lex, and I dunno, I love Gene Hackman, don't get me wrong, but I never bought him as Lex Luthor. He was good and funny in Superman 1&2 he was funny, and probably better and Spacey was, but not as Lex Luthor, more as "The villain played by Gene Hackman" who happened to be named Lex Luthor. But Yeah, Spacey I bought as Lex. And if I had a Cell phone, I would make my ringtone a repeating soundclip of Kevin Spacey saying, "Krrrrryyyyptonite!" over and over just for the sheer oddity.
-(this one may be a spoiler) And I liked the the one scene where Lex and Lois meet, the grand reveal, as it were. Usually in a movie like this it's the evil villain sitting in the chair, holding a cat, and turing around to reveal himself- nice suit and all. But this time she happens to stumble upon him just brushing his teeth in a bathrobe. I thought that was very amusing.
Bad:
Stupid, stupid plot. They go with the lame "Lex has an evil plot" shtick, which just didn't justify a 2 and a half hour film. It ran too long.
All in all the movie achieved nothing other than shouting to the world, hey superman is back. We want your money. Please see this and any other sequels that ensue.
and I'm sure other stuff sucked too but I'll leave that to the true critics.
Don't feel like repeating the postives of what people have already said but definitely a :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: Ravi on June 29, 2006, 06:50:04 PM
I thought it would be a huge hit. It's Superman, for Christ's sake! We'll see how it fares this weekend.
'Superman' Soars to $52 Million OpeningSuperman may not be the world's greatest superhero at the box office, but the Man of Steel still flies high. "Superman Returns" took in $52.15 million over opening weekend, lifting its five-day total since its debut Wednesday to $84.2 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.
That puts the Warner Bros. film ahead of the premiere of last year's "Batman Begins," another Warner superhero revival, which took in $48.7 million over its opening weekend and $72.9 million in its first five days. But "Superman Returns" finished far behind Sony's "Spider-Man 2," the record-holder for best five-day openings, with $152.4 million over Fourth of July weekend in 2004.
From what I see, this film is getting overall positive word of mouth, so perhaps it will continue to score some dollars. If a trash movie like X3 can make $228 mil, then by god Superman Returns must also.
Before I saw it, a friend told me that if I go in expecting Superman V (or Superman III, depending on how you look at it), I'd be dissappointed and upset. But I think the way to look at it is not as a sequel, but still in the same universe. Yes, there are plenty of nods to the first two, and even some major plot points. Yes, the credit sequence is the same. The closing shot as well. But it's not really a sequel, meaning it doesn't need to fit in style-wise and art-wise. Yes, the first two were more comedic. That's how they were made. That doesn't mean this one has to be comedic as well. For some, that becomes a dull movie. I didn't find it to be dull at all.
I enjoyed the action sequences (no, the CG wasn't perfect, but neither was the original's effects, but we forgive it because 1.) it was back in the 70's and 2.) we love the movie. Besides, who thought the effects in X-Men and X2 were perfect? Not me, so I wasn't expecting perfect effects on this one either). I do think Lex's plot could have been more original. I mean, basically they tried to combine his story from part I and II. A little annoying, but I still kind of enjoyed it. While I wasn't quite okay with the characterization of Lois Lane (I could have used a little more spunk), I went back afterwards and saw Superman II and just found Lois to be annoying, and couldn't see how in the world anyone, let alone Superman/Clark Kent, could actually fall in love with her. The only reason I could come up with was that he has to, for the sake of the story.
It's not the best it could have been, and I think a sequel will make for an absolutely spectacular piece of work, but I still liked Superman Returns a lot. Enough to see it a few more times in theaters.
But it's not for everybody, I can totally understand that.
this was wonderful! it's a film that hits on all cylinders. it gives you chills, i tell yah! i was jumping up and down in my seat many times, as was much of the theater.
brandon routh was OUTSTANDING. i mean let's face it, all great special effects and supporting characters aside, if routh doesn't work, the movie doesn't work. i particularly liked it when he was clark kent. i found him much more subtle w/ the overall goofiness of the character than reeve's portrayal. parker and the little kid were both fantastic as well.
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 28, 2006, 11:35:43 AM(other than a certain plot point I had a problem with that I won't mention here).
which part? i did think luthor's whole evil scheme was pretty weak, and i attribute that to just lazy screenwriting. it didn't really even make sense when you think about it. but the overall badassness of the flick made me get over it.
i wouldn't name flaws specifically, but i did find some missed opportunities, the biggest one being...
[SPOILIES BELOW]
when superman is in the hospital, and we see all of nyc awaiting the official word of his survival. there shoulda been a quick "he's alive!" moment, and they shoulda leveraged the "SUPERMAN LIVES" newspaper headline. i wanted to see people cheering, rejoicing, the whole world even!
can't wait to see it again!
Singer Turns Directing Power on Superman
Bryan Singer did not read comic books as a kid, yet he's become the kingpin of Hollywood superhero adaptations.
After the character-driven tales "The Usual Suspects" and "Apt Pupil," director Singer began the current phase of artsy comic-book epics with 2000's "X-Men," continued with 2003's sequel "X2: X-Men United," and now has revived the world's greatest superhero with "Superman Returns."
Though not a comic-book fan growing up in the 1970s, he fell in love with the Man of Steel through reruns of the 1950s TV show "Adventures of Superman," starring George Reeves. On opening night in 1978, Singer went with his mom to see Richard Donner's "Superman," with Christopher Reeve.
Warner Bros. futilely tried to create a new Superman movie for more than a decade, with top directors such as Tim Burton, McG and Brett Ratner involved in various stories that fell through. Singer, 40, came in with his own ideas, adding a postscript to the Christopher Reeve era.
The film picks up five years after Superman has trekked across the cosmos to see if anything remains of his destroyed home world, Krypton. Returning to Earth, Superman has to adjust to a planet that has learned to make do without him.
Starring newcomer Brandon Routh in the title role, "Superman Returns" joined Singer's "X-Men" and "X2" as an instant blockbuster, raking in an estimated $84 million in its first five days.
Singer chatted with The Associated Press about how he became a Superman fan, what it took to bring the hero back to life and why it's so important to keep the Man of Steel clad in his traditional tights, made of material as indestructible as Frodo Baggins' mithral armor in "The Lord of the Rings"
___
AP: What drew you to Superman as a boy?
Singer: I think for me, it was because I was an only child, and I was also adopted. I found I somehow identified with this character and thought, well, what if I had a special heritage and special genes? I love my parents, but somehow, I had that identification with the character.
AP: Did you ever consider taking Superman out of the old blue-and-red tights and giving him a hipper costume, like what the "X-Men" wear?
Singer: Never. The X-Men, they have powers, but they're still vulnerable, so they have to have some uniforms, some fighting gear, things like that. Superman is the Man of Steel. Bullets bounce off him, not his suit. So even though his suit is kind of like Kryptonian mithral I stole that from Brandon, by the way. That was his. I said, "Brandon, what do you think of the suit?" He said, "It's like Kryptonian mithral," so I'm using that now. I feel guilty. But it's true, the strength comes from the man. Batman needs a suit, Spider-Man needs a mask. Superman, he's just wearing the Superman suit.
AP: Superman's outfit has been updated a bit.
Singer: The only thing I did is I raised the shield on the chest. The reason I did that was because the decal, the silkscreen, felt very cheap. You could cast light onto the raised, etched shield in a cool way. It would take light in different ways, and I could tell different moments of the story with flat lighting and side lighting, depending on where he was at. Also, the hardness of it, the raised-ness of it, was kind of a nod to the Kryptonian technology, that the suit is part of a greater Kryptonian history and technology that is not of this Earth. And I took the "S" off the back of the cape, but that was never part of the comic book, anyway.
AP: Was it ironic that Brett Ratner, who was once signed on to do a "Superman" movie, wound up making the third "X-Men" film, while you came over to "Superman Returns"?
Singer: Yeah, because at one point he was involved in this project. There was one moment where a second-unit director asked me to call Brett, because I'm friends with Brett, to recommend him. ... I was having this 45-minute conversation with Brett Ratner when he was prepping a "Superman" movie and I remember feeling happy for him but jealous at the same time, because I love Superman so much. It's interesting that this should have happened. It's my love of Superman that kind of inspired me to do "X-Men." I had a five-hour bootleg of Richard Donner's "Superman." It was all cobbled together from outtakes that someone somehow got a hold of, and we would watch this in the trailer on the set of "X-Men."
AP: Has Richard Donner had anything to say about "Superman Returns"?
Singer: He wrote me a fax. He said, "I want to be within five seats of you at the premiere, so I can either hug you or hit you."
AP: Your movie seems to fit right in after Donner's "Superman" and its first sequel.
Singer: It's a quasi-sequelization of the first two films. I kind of used those as historical springboards. Once I decided to use those as springboards, I thought it was appropriate to bring in some of the iconography, the John Barry designs and the Fortress of Solitude, and enhance those. And the music, of course. The John Williams music is very important to me. That opening theme has to be there. It's like "Star Wars." It has to be there.
AP: Where was the studio at with "Superman" when you came on board with your own story?
Singer: It was a retelling of the origin story. I was offered it, actually. I was offered it three years ago. I passed on it, not because it was bad. It was a decent script, a good script. It had interesting things in it. But it departed from the mythology as I knew it so much, and it retold a story that I think for people over the age of 25 they had already been told in the first "Superman" and for people under the age of 25 they had seen on "Smallville." And I felt if I'm going to tell a story, it simply has to be a return story.
Exclusive Interview: DIRECTOR OF STEEL BRYAN SINGER FLIES HIGH WITH SUPERMAN RETURNS - PT. 1
In a candid three-part interview with iF MAGAZINE, the filmmaker discusses the evolution of SUPERMAN, the stamina needed to create a film of this scope and casting James Marsden as the perennial nice guy hero who has trouble holding on to the heroine's heart
By: ANTHONY C. FERRANTE
Flying high this weekend at the boxoffice, SUPERMAN RETURNS took in over $52.2 million in five days, no doubt resulting in a collective sigh of relief from Warner Bros. who invested many years in their attempts to re-launch the Superman character on the big screen.
The key to the success was nabbing X-MEN helmer Bryan Singer. His radical re-invention of the Superman mythos was not to re-imagine and change him for the 21st Century, but rather take a more retro-approach in linking his vision with that of Richard Donner's who was the brainchild behind the first two SUPERMAN movies in 1978 and 1981 respectively.
The 40-year old Singer has his own fondness and connection with the material since he himself was adopted (much like Superman was adopted by the Kent family) and it was a theme that certainly resonated with him both as a young child growing up in the late '70s and now as a filmmaker in charge of multi-million dollar studio franchise.
After a whirlwind of publicity, Singer granted iF Magazine an exclusive interview last week, a day before SUPERMAN RETURNS hit theaters. In part 1 of this candid three-part story, the filmmaker talks about the evolution of the film and the grueling nature of helming a complicated film such as SUPERMAN.
iF MAGAZINE: One more day, I bet you're relieved.
BRYAN SINGER: I am, I think. I just finished the film not very long ago, so I guess it is a relief.
iF: You've said before how exhausting it is to do these films. Can you elaborate for those who don't really grasp the gargantuan effort it takes as a director to prepare, shoot and do post on a film of SUPERMAN RETURNS' scale
SINGER: Normally on a film, the focus would merely be on script development and casting, and that's what you do leading up to the making of a film. With these types of films, there's so much involved in the storyboarding, pre-production design and pre-visualization, it's so overwhelming and time consuming. Combined with the script development and the casting, by the time you're done with it, you're completely exhausted and almost ready to finish. You feel like you've completed a large task and suddenly now you have to begin shooting the movie. And unlike a normal movie, which takes 12 or 13 weeks to shoot, this takes over five months to shoot. By the time you're in the middle of that aspect of it – 75 days into shooting – there's just a physical fatigue of shooting that many hours. Plus I spent a lot of time in the cutting room, combined with keeping the whole story, the plot and emotional aspect of the story in your head over that period of time, you're very fatigued in every single way. And when that's over, you can't just chill in the editing room and put together the movie, because you're rolling out visual effects by the hundreds every day. So by the time you're done, it's this two-year, non-stop commitment and it's very unusual and kind of unlike any other process. You're almost amazed when you step back and actually go, "oh wow, it came out kind of like I thought it might." It always is a miracle to me.
iF: Occasionally you'll see a film by a filmmaker who you can tell doesn't really connect with the material and the end result is usually disastrous. When you see a film like that, does it make you acutely aware, that every project you do as "Bryan Singer" has to be something that resonates with you otherwise there's no point in spending all of this time on one film?
SINGER: Absolutely. I cannot comprehend spending this kind of time and effort on something that is merely a product for distribution. Whether it does well or not, is nothing I can really control, it's in the hands of the audience. I have to have some belief in it. There has to be something thematic or in its core a reason to make the movie. The pitfall is, as you start caring about it so much, it cuts into your enjoyment factor of making it – because I'm always so stressed in the process. One day I think I've made a terrible mistake and the next day I think, "Oh wait, this is really something." And that becomes the emotional gruel. You have the physical gruel, the mental gruel and an emotional gruel because you actually care about the thing. There is a weird kind of military campaign, making these pictures. And it involves an enormous amount of people too.
iF: The SUPERMAN sequel had stalled for many years before you came on board. Once you finally got the job, how do you distill all this rich history into a cohesive movie that not only ties into the other films but also expands upon them?
SINGER: Had I not made the first two X-MEN films, I don't think I would have been as prepared to take a very popular sort of and universe and be able to isolate the elements that have gathered wind and speed over the years. In SUPERMAN, it meant a lot of things to a great many more people. He's a bigger iconic character, he's been around longer, and he's the first superhero. So there's a lot of expectation attached to it. I even produced a documentary about the history of Superman – LOOK, UP IN THE SKY: THE AMAZING STORY OF SUPERMAN – and for me it was very cathartic. I was able to step back and take a look at this entire history. For instance in the original comic, he didn't fly, he jumped from building to building. Luthor was a scientist, then he became the capitalist Lex Luthor. And a lot of the aspect of the music, the bumbling Clark – a lot of that came in the 1978 film as well as a lot of the Kryptonian legacy. In looking back over the decades, it's a mixture of seeing the cream that has risen to the top of the history of Superman and simply taking aspects of his long history that I liked and that appealed to me. In the case of this movie, it was actually a few lines Marlon Brando spoke in the original film that just completely set me off. One of them is when his mother Laura is placing Kal-El in the spaceship and she says, "he will be isolated and alone" and Marlon Brando holds up a crystal and says "he will not be alone, he will never be alone." And he places this crystal into this spaceship and as a kid, when I saw that, what powerful reassurance. How do you send your only son off to another world, another place, forever and you're never going to see them again and yet give them that kind of reassurance. That really spoke to me as a kid and that always lingered in my mind over the years.
iF: I guess it's safe to say, since you're a product of the '70s that, two of the most defining moments for you must have been seeing STAR WARS and SUPERMAN all within a two year period..
SINGER: Yes, for me, particularly as an adopted, only child. Superman and Luke Skywalker are two adopted, only children who find out who they really are and their true destiny. They're two of the great offspring of 20th Century fantasy mythology. Both of them were great heroes clearly in the '70s when both of these movies came out back-to-back really.
iF: One of the things I appreciated about what you did with SUPERMAN RETURNS is capturing that sense of wonder audiences felt when they saw that first SUPERMAN movie in 1978, but it was updated enough that it works for modern audiences. And I think that's why some of the later SUPERMAN movies failed, because they forgot what SUPERMAN was about. It's not really about the villains per se, it's more about this doomed romance that can never be satisfied between Clark Kent and Lois Lane.
SINGER: Someone was asking me this the other night. Superman is Superman, but Lex Luthor is a human obstacle, how are you going to treat that. But Luthor has always been mind over muscle, he will find a way [to battle Superman], but the real obstacle has always been this 70-year romance from across the newsroom between this kid Clark who went to become a reporter and this woman Lois Lane. The fact that he happens to also be a superhero is almost an impediment because that's who she naturally falls for. What's fun about this movie is both characters come into emotional question and that and the notion of his isolation were the two things that appealed to me -- besides the fact that I'm a huge Superman fan.
iF: After the X-MEN movies where you had James Marsden as Cyclops fighting to keep Jean Grey's heart, you seem to be casting Marsden again in a similar role as Lois Lane's fiancé who is trying to hold on to her heart.
SINGER: It's a tough role to play "that guy." He' s not a bad guy. Like in X-MEN, Cyclops is not a bad guy, he's actually a really good guy and I always had affection for those guys. Ben Stiller made a movie with Ethan Hawke, REALITY BITES. I love Ethan Hawke and I've known him for years, but I was rooting for Ben Stiller's character. My heart went out to him. Just because he drove a Saab, he's a nice guy and he loves this girl, and there is always that emotional conflict in relationships. They're never as simple as a commitment, a marriage or a sweetheart. They always go through these ups and downs and are much more complex and this is that kind of movie.
iF: Did you realize you were doing that with him – putting him in a similar type of role?
SINGER: I think I was very conscious of that. And I think he's played this role a few times. I mean, [he did it] in THE NOTEBOOK. He can play that guy. I love working with him, but he certainly is no stranger to the role and we joke about it very often. "Why don't I play 'the guy' instead of 'that guy.' He's fine. He likes playing "that guy."
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.
You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.
For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.
Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?
Quote from: ®edlum on July 05, 2006, 08:59:08 AM
Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?
it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting. i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 05, 2006, 03:16:19 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.
You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.
For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.
I have to disagree with some of that. I watched the first 2 Superman films on HBO over the weekend and the comedy in both (Lex's wonderfully smug dialogue aside) was obviously put there for the kids; very little of it pushed the story forward at all. For me, the Superman films have always been more about (besides the action sequences) the poignant moments than the comedic ones. Sure, there's a few great moments in there but the comedy makes the first two teeter between serious adaptation and flat-out parody. I don't mind that it's there but it certainly doesn't offer any more depth. If anything, it's filler, albeit amusing filler.
And the characters were always kind of stock. Otis' character wasn't really developed at all; he's just some dumb schmuck that Lex hired for God knows what reason (it made more sense that Lex hired his nephew in the god-awful Superman 4). The only real character development that we get out of Miss Teschmacher is that she has a mother in Hackensack and she always goes for the wrong guys. And really, how much do we know about Jimmy Olson? I'm not saying that Superman Returns had any more character development than the original film, I'm saying that it doesn't have any less. And no installment is any more or less absurd than any other. A story about a man wearing his underwear on the outside, flying around and fighting crime is pretty absurd by design, as is the idea that no one ever realizes that if you took off Clark Kent's glasses, he looks exactly like Superman. I'm glad they had a little fun with that in the new film.
If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent. I really was hoping for more. One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things. When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before. That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive. I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone.
Quote from: hackspaced on July 05, 2006, 10:20:27 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 05, 2006, 03:16:19 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.
You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.
For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.
I have to disagree with some of that. I watched the first 2 Superman films on HBO over the weekend and the comedy in both (Lex's wonderfully smug dialogue aside) was obviously put there for the kids; very little of it pushed the story forward at all. For me, the Superman films have always been more about (besides the action sequences) the poignant moments than the comedic ones. Sure, there's a few great moments in there but the comedy makes the first two teeter between serious adaptation and flat-out parody. I don't mind that it's there but it certainly doesn't offer any more depth. If anything, it's filler, albeit amusing filler.
And the characters were always kind of stock. Otis' character wasn't really developed at all; he's just some dumb schmuck that Lex hired for God knows what reason (it made more sense that Lex hired his nephew in the god-awful Superman 4). The only real character development that we get out of Miss Teschmacher is that she has a mother in Hackensack and she always goes for the wrong guys. And really, how much do we know about Jimmy Olson? I'm not saying that Superman Returns had any more character development than the original film, I'm saying that it doesn't have any less. And no installment is any more or less absurd than any other. A story about a man wearing his underwear on the outside, flying around and fighting crime is pretty absurd by design, as is the idea that no one ever realizes that if you took off Clark Kent's glasses, he looks exactly like Superman. I'm glad they had a little fun with that in the new film.
If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent. I really was hoping for more. One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things. When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before. That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive. I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone.
In many ways, you're right. The thing is, when I speak of comedy adding depth what I mean is that the comedy element invites us to like and identify with the characters more so than in the new film. There really is little depth as a serious analysis would go, but Superman means to be nothing more than a light fare anyways so nothing is hindered with the focus on the comedy.
You mention all the characters, but you forget to mention Lois Lane and Clark Kent. The original film asks a lot of the audience to believe in the connection of Lois Lane and Clark Kent to truly believe in Superman's desperation and anger as he fails to rescue Lois Lane from the earthquake. The character development in the film is badly written and the film doesn't yeild enough time to give much history to any connection they might have. Superman's connection with Lois Lane is based just on a rescue and one night alone. Yet the earthquake scene does work because all the characters were instantly likable and geniune in their motives. The positive exterior of the film is due to the focus on the comedy.
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on July 05, 2006, 09:10:20 AM
Quote from: ®edlum on July 05, 2006, 08:59:08 AM
Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?
it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting. i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first.
Oh yeah? Shit. I've been planning on the IMAX... and I had heard good things. If I were going to watch it just once, would you still recommend the regular screen?
And what's the Singer-designed cue for the glasses?
Quote from: hackspaced on July 05, 2006, 10:20:27 AM
If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent. I really was hoping for more. One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things. When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before. That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive. I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone.
Thats one of the reasons why I like Smallville. It shows that aspect of Superman that was left out of the movies. How human is he? Why does he care so much about humanity? Why Clark Kent is who he is, and Martha's influence. Smallville shows everything very well, and Martha is one of the most important characters. Also, since they showed the father's death on the show, it shows how important he was and the repercussions of that in his life.
Quote from: kal, In the X Men 2 Thread on May 27, 2006, 11:19:18 PM
its ok to express your opinion but coming back again and again to trash the movie and everybodys opinion is kinda stupid...
Quote from: kal on June 29, 2006, 02:46:09 PM
a piece of shit like X-Men
Quote from: matt35mm on July 05, 2006, 12:07:01 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on July 05, 2006, 09:10:20 AM
Quote from: ®edlum on July 05, 2006, 08:59:08 AM
Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?
it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting. i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first.
Oh yeah? Shit. I've been planning on the IMAX... and I had heard good things. If I were going to watch it just once, would you still recommend the regular screen?
And what's the Singer-designed cue for the glasses?
it was great at the IMAX. There's only four scenes in 3D, but they all worked well. There's one moment I recall, I think the first 3D scene where a young Clark is in the barn, that looks especially real. 3D movies in general still have kinks to be worked out, but moments like those kinda show to me that in a couple years, this could be a new and exciting direction for cinema. Having to wear the glasses (blinking green lights at the bottom of the screen let you know when to put them on) is kinda tough because if your not wearing them perfectly, or if you smeared butter on the lense ( :shock:), it doesn't look perfect, but when it does -- :bravo:. The IMAX screens are so big that the screens encompass almost all of your vision and its a pretty immersive experence when it does work. i feel like that once the technique is perfected, cinema will be able to touch into a different part of the brain where its so vivid that it becomes almost dreamlike. i just wish you didn't have to wear the glasses, and that it didn't have to be an action movie. gimme a malick film and then its a truly amazing experience.
the movie was okay. not enough "down" moments and far too little characterization. especially for lois's kid. i'm able to overlook a lot of its flaws because a) it showed me the capabilities of 3D, and b) it was a damn good time.
but see it. at the IMAX. and enjoy every minute of it.
THAT'S what I wanted to hear! :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 05, 2006, 03:16:19 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.
The difference is that the original starts with comedy and moves into sadness. Returns starts off with the sadness and therefore has to tone down the comedy.
Quote from: RegularKarate on July 05, 2006, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 05, 2006, 03:16:19 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 30, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.
You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.
The difference is that the original starts with comedy and moves into sadness. Returns starts off with the sadness and therefore has to tone down the comedy.
Krypton exploding is fun? Clark Kent's father dying is cheery? Along those lines, the original Superman starts with sadness and moves into comedy and the back into sadness with the earthquake. You can still specify differences between the original and the new film, but its not worth it.
Anyways, we're getting off base here. Both films have similar storylines and qualities to them. Superman Returns tries to be as funny as the original Superman. It just isn't. The characterization isn't as good to be funny or charming at all. Its just bland. The focus of Superman returns is too technically suave to support the good characterization. Too many cuts dominate simple scenes and the action sequences have a reliance on so much CGI that the film becomes a wonderfest of visuals that keep characterizarion on the back burner.
Exclusive Interview: DIRECTOR BRYAN SINGER REVEALS WHAT WAS LEFT ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR OF SUPERMAN RETURNS - PT. 2
In a candid three-part interview with iF MAGAZINE, the filmmaker discusses the future of the SUPERMAN franchise and the excised Return to Krypton sequence
By: ANTHONY C. FERRANTE; iF Magazine
Flying high this weekend at the boxoffice, SUPERMAN RETURNS took in over $108.1 million in seven days, no doubt resulting in a collective sigh of relief from Warner Bros. who invested many years in their attempts to re-launch the Superman character on the big screen.
The key to the success was nabbing X-MEN helmer Bryan Singer. His radical re-invention of the Superman mythos was not to re-imagine and change him for the 21st Century, but rather take a more retro-approach in linking his vision with that of Richard Donner's who was the brainchild behind the first two SUPERMAN movies in 1978 and 1981 respectively.
After a whirlwind of publicity, Singer granted iF Magazine an exclusive interview last week, a day before SUPERMAN RETURNS hit theaters. In part 2 of this candid three-part story, the filmmaker talks about Brandon Roth's embodiment of Superman, the future of the franchise and what was left on the cutting room floor of SUPERMAN RETURNS.
iF MAGAZINE: Brandon Routh doesn't come off as a caricature or a parody of the Christopher Reeve-era of SUPERMAN, he's just Superman. How did you get Brandon to that point, without the character evolving into parody?
BRYAN SINGER: I wasn't looking for someone with that striking resemblance, but Brandon does bear a certain resemblance to Christopher Reeve, so that is an added bonus. He has to look and sound as if Superman stepped out of your collective consciousness and part of that is Christopher Reeve. He had a calm center that was very much Superman and an awkward vulnerability that is Clark Kent. And he had the physical [part]. There were aspects in talking with him [initially], that would translate very much to the heart of Clark Kent who was raised on the farm and who would figure out how to reclaim his relationship with Lois Lane, with these insurmountable human obstacles. [Also, casting an unknown has] served me well in the past. With HOUSE, USUAL SUSPECTS and X-MEN, I've always had unknowns at the center of my films. It's not essential for me. I'm not against working with movie stars, but it is kind of exciting to craft and make that audience feel they're watching Superman, not someone play a role or impersonate him, they're just watching Superman on the screen. Somehow it kicks off that collective memory or preconception of the character.
iF: There was a quote that popped up right after the SUPERMAN RETURNS junket about the IMAX film and how you would like to take a deleted scene and show it in IMAX, but it was unclear if you meant for a future re-release, or some time in the next few months. Can you clarify what you meant by that?
SINGER: There's a sequence I shot in the movie where Superman returns to the shattered remains of his home world on Krypton. I shot the sequence, and I chose to complete the sequence. It's a pretty expensive elaborate sequence, but it ultimately didn't play in the scope of the movie. It wasn't necessary and it didn't feel right in the movie. I took it out and cut it. It was one of those kind of things where you have to hold your breath. Even though I worked very hard on this and even though it's very elaborate and elegant and expensive, I'm going to have the guts to pull it out, because it's going to compromise the rest of the picture. In looking what IMAX has done with the 20 minutes of 3-D they've created for the IMAX release of SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's just so impressive and interesting. And when I look at this sequence, I really feel, it doesn't belong on a DVD, it doesn't belong on [the theatrical version of the] movie, but if I were to make more of the movie 3-D later at some point, a year or something like that, I would have them to do the same process on the RK [Return to Krypton] sequence as I call it. That might be a nice thing to have for audiences down the road. You don't think about those things until you see how people respond to the movie.
iF: How long was the sequence?
SINGER: About five or six minutes.
iF: So there might be a SUPERMAN RETURNS: IMAX SPECIAL EDITION?
SINGER: The only way I would consider it, if there were a worthwhile alteration or treatment of the movie. I'm not super fond of recutting a movie I've made. I feel the cuts of my movies are the director's cut, but down the road, seeing how this IMAX conversion works, and seeing how the movie plays, It's always possible that in the future, I'm holding this sequence back, it exists and I can use it there. This was just a thought I had. There is nothing conniving or for economics per se. The sequence exists, it was completed, it has not yet been scored. IMAX did one test on one of the space shots in 3-D and I could see what the landscape would look like in 3-D and it was cool. It was like the difference between POLAR EXPRESS and POLAR EXPRESS in 3-D. SUPERMAN RETURNS can be experienced both ways. It was shot to be a conventional film, but the 3-D process is really extraordinary, but in this particular RK sequence, there is so much going on dimensionally in space, it would be fun to see it in that way. Seeing it not in that way, it was something ultimately the film could do without.
iF: The running time of the movie is pretty long, I'm assuming there is a longer cut of the movie as well? Did you delete a lot of stuff?
SINGER: Not much longer. I got it to a two hour and forty-five minute cut and at that point, I needed to sit with an audience and watch it. So I put together a friends and family screening. It's a very mellow group, about 100 people or so. Children of people at Warner Bros., friends of mine, they all sit in theater and we watch the film. People fill out little cards or they talk to you afterwards. You really know what's working and what's not working as you're watching it. And I felt it, so I was able to pull over fifteen minutes out of the film.
iF: Which pieces were that?
SINGER: Things in the beginning. There was a little more on the Kent farm, there was this RK sequence. There were little things throughout the movie, bits and pieces I always wanted to address and they totaled about fifteen minutes. I reconceived the beginning a bit at the last minute. It began a little differently originally. It began with a proscenium stage and the original opening scenes played out differently. I felt there were too many openings to the movie, too much exposition. So once I had all this material, I stepped back from it. I said, "I think this needs to open more poetic." I need to have a bit of the past, I need to evoke Brando and the voice of Jor-El and a bit of Krypton's history, but I need to do it in a more poetic way than I was doing as it was constructed. So I did a little reconceiving of the beginning and then removed that [Return to Krypton] sequence and some elements of the farm and it kind of worked itself out well. If your film is a little too front heavy, it gets into the cumulative effects of your cut and there are little objectivity games you play with yourself and part of it is sitting with and audience and watching it. You feel it in a room, you feel when it's working and when it's not. That's where I made most of my cuts – in the beginning.
iF: I know you've talked about being unsure if you want to come back to do a sequel. However, let's assume if you're going to come back and do a sequel, how would you approach it,, especially since the Rogue' gallery for Superman is pretty skimpy on memorability compared to other superhero franchises. How would you determine who your villain would be?
SINGER: I couldn't tell you that, because if I did, it would take me down a slope of revealing a series of thoughts I do have regarding that. It would deal with the present characters and the present situation that happens and there would obviously be additional characters, but in this movie, there is certainly a conundrum and a situation occurring. It takes him the length of the movie to crystallize Superman's position and reclaim who he is in this world and in Metropolis in a way, I would tend to want to explore some of the things that have already been established. It would certainly be a continuation of this movie. There would be a new element, but I wouldn't want to reveal that.
iF: Is LOGAN'S RUN dead?
SINGER: It's not dead, it's too magnificent. The world we developed and the things we pre-vised is too extraordinary. Not only was I shooting this movie over the last two years, but also I have my [Fox] TV series HOUSE and I also produced [THE TRIANGLE] mini-series for the SCI FI network which was simultaneously shooting in South Africa. So some of these things were relatively new to me, over the last two years, while making [SUPERMAN RETURNS], so these two years were very overwhelming and I couldn't jump right into a movie of that scope and LOGAN'S RUN was becoming a movie of tremendous scope and as I explained in the earlier part of this interview, how challenging and exhausting these things can be. Right now I have to take a sort of enforced vacation.
Director Bryan Singer mulls a superhero showdown
Source: MTV
Now that Superman has returned, what menace will he battle next? That's the big question in Hollywood this week, and since Brandon Routh was discovered in casting sessions for a once-planned "Batman vs. Superman" flick, rumors of the blockbuster smackdown have been resurrected. "I was at a party recently; Hugh Jackman had a benefit at his house," "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer said. "I went there, and Christian Bale was there, and I suddenly felt like Brandon should be there too. I had all these superheroes around me." Routh added that while he enjoyed sparring verbally with "Batman" star Bale recently at the MTV Movie Awards, he'd prefer to see the two heroes work together. "I don't think we should go toe-to-toe, unless one of us is deranged somehow by some mind-altering drug," he laughed. "We shouldn't be fighting each other; we should be combining forces." Singer said he'd consider directing a "Batman vs. Superman" flick, but only after the Man of Steel establishes his identity a bit more thoroughly. "I've thought about it for a long time — even a longer time ago, actually," the director revealed. "But I don't know who would be the villain. I guess Batman would be the villain, but then he can't be too bad, because he is Batman. So not quite yet. ... I think Superman needs to have his own movies for a little while before that happens." Either way, Singer insisted that "everybody's excited to do more ... and I'm sure we'll do another one." And Routh had this word of warning for Bale: "I don't think Batman really, really wants to go and mess with Superman."
i know a lot of people are against this idea, and it could so easily be terrible but i would still love to see it like 10 years down the line when superman and batman have had like 3 or 4 good films apiece. as long as somebody like singer or nolan directed it and it doesnt actually have 'vs' in the title it could be great. worlds finest.
i don't want to dwell too much on this subject, for i fear if it spans too many pages we'll have to rename this thread "where virginity also lives forever" but superman would OWN batman. no contest. one of them swings on wires. the other can pick up a plane.
Did you watch Superman Returns?
All Batman would have to do is bang Lois Lane with this Bruce Wayne charm and Supes would fly himself into the sun.
Game over.
I think the way to do this would be more of a rivarly to get the appreciation and support from the people. They wouldnt fight each other, but compete to be the best superhero, the one that makes a bigger difference in saving lives and stuff. When you think about it, its kinda boring, but it could work. Other than that Superman would destroy Batman and his gadgets in less than a minute.
Well, this rumor has been around before. When Batman Begins was being prepped to be released it was reported by a fan that he ran into Christian Bale and asked him about the plans for the Batman franchise and Bale said said there would be two sequels and then a Superman vs. Batman film. Superman may win the battle, but Batman will always win the interest factor. Superman's blandness will make him the antagonist.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 07, 2006, 10:37:54 AM
Superman may win the battle, but Batman will always win the interest factor. Superman's blandness will make the antagonist.
yeah totally, they should compete on the stand-up circuit.
Dudes, Superman TOTALLY already fought Batman.. that shit was a DRAW!
I think Bats woulda won though because he was using kryptonite and fightin' dirty.
Screw this Batman/Superman stuff. The real question is: who would win in a stretch-off between Plastic Man and Mr. Fantastic? And anyone who even mentions Stretch Armstrong gets punched in the mouth. I don't care if his arms do stretch all the way to next week.
Saw it. Loved it.
Everyone keeps referring to this movie as sort of a sequel to Superman I & II. But didn't Clark Kent reveal his superidentity to lois at Niagara Falls in Pt. II? Which would kind of make this a sequel only to Superman: The Movie?
Quote from: Derek on July 10, 2006, 02:24:25 PM
Saw it. Loved it.
Everyone keeps referring to this movie as sort of a sequel to Superman I & II. But didn't Clark Kent reveal his superidentity to lois at Niagara Falls in Pt. II? Which would kind of make this a sequel only to Superman: The Movie?
He did reveal his identity to her in part II but he erased her memory of it before the end of the movie. More importantly, they had sex in the sequel thus making the subplot of Superman Returns possible.
Wow.
This wasn't that good. I expected to like it more than I did. It was made out of plastic. Kate Bosworth will always look like a baby doll (an actual baby doll). I saw it in IMAX 3D, which was neat enough but doesn't affect my opinion of the film either way. It was pretty dull in the writing, and executed with a perfect mastery of the standard approach. I didn't dislike it, I just was surprised by how little I felt for it. That's about all there is to say.
EXCLUSIVE: Super ($200 Million) Man or Else?
Source: TMZ.com
Will Hollywood blockbuster budgets continue to fly "up, up and away?" Not necessarily.
At least, not at Warner Bros. Pictures. After a $225 million "Pirates of the Caribbean" sailed into port, taking the wind out of "Superman Returns'" $205 million Spandex, Warner Bros. executives are said to be circumspect as to whether the Man of Steel will fly again.
Talent agency insiders with ties to the film tell TMZ that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark domestically. What's more, the studio plans to shave millions - many millions - off any "Superman" sequel's budget. (Amusingly, in the current "Superman Returns," Lois Lane pleads with Lex Luthor, "But millions will die! " It turns out she was right on the money.)
As Variety's box office guru Ben Fritz noted last July 4th, "Superman Returns is off to a strong start, albeit not as fast as a speeding bullet. Warner Bros. superhero tent pole grossed a solid $52.5 million on its opening weekend and $74 million over the five-day Fourth of July frame. Since its Wednesday opening, the Bryan Singer-helmed franchise restart has taken in $106 million."
Talent agency insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insist that Horn is so concerned about being burned financially by ionospheric "Superman" special effects costs that any sequel's budget would cost far less than Bryan Singer's quarter billion dollar baby: a meager $150 million. That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost. So much for a getting a raise.
However, no one could blame Horn for being cautious. Despite opening at No. 1 in all its territories, overseas, the Man of Steel is starting to look just a bit rusty. The just-ended World Cup meant that Warner Bros. took a pass on European and Latin American territories, and its second weekend in release overseas, "Superman Returns" dipped 55% to take in $9 million from 1,800 prints in 14 markets.
We're bracing to hear how director Bryan Singer will react to this newfound fiscal restraint.
Our guess: Not well.
Says one executive involved in the production and financing of "Superman Returns," "They can try and spin it as 'There are certain economies of scale that come from the making of the first one, blah blah blah. But the reality is, it's harder to play in a smaller sandbox and still push the envelope."
Calls place to Horn were not returned, and a studio spokeswoman declined to comment on the fiscal retrenchment.
So much for good word of mouth. Fan boys and the initial wave only seemed to have went to this one. A worthy failure for a movie that wasn't even enjoyable.
Quote from: modage on June 29, 2006, 04:20:47 PM
watching the film, as much as i enjoyed it, i can see that its not going to be a huge hit. my guess is more along the lines of Kong backlash as far as its reception and BO. :(
I vaguely remember seeing the original Superman film, but have no specific recollections of it. I had my reservations about Routh at first, but he turned out to be pretty good. His performance was stoic and strong, but also less guarded when needed to be. Bosworth looks too young for the part, but she was better than Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Kevin Spacey was good as Lex Luthor. The film as a whole was pretty good, but it felt more like a setup for future films than a film to be fully enjoyed in its own right.
At the IMAX showing I went to the DTS CD skipped when SPOILER Superman was under water and Lois saved him END SPOILER and it kept repeating one of Jor-El's lines. At first it seemed like an artistic choice, but it kept going and it was clear that it was an error. The theater gave us a free pass to see another film, yay.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 10, 2006, 05:44:43 PM
Quote from: Derek on July 10, 2006, 02:24:25 PM
Saw it. Loved it.
Everyone keeps referring to this movie as sort of a sequel to Superman I & II. But didn't Clark Kent reveal his superidentity to lois at Niagara Falls in Pt. II? Which would kind of make this a sequel only to Superman: The Movie?
He did reveal his identity to her in part II but he erased her memory of it before the end of the movie. More importantly, they had sex in the sequel thus making the subplot of Superman Returns possible.
SPOILER
Okay, but if he erased her memory of having slept with him, her 5 year ols with superpowers would come as a bit of a shock then?
Quote from: Derek on July 17, 2006, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on July 10, 2006, 05:44:43 PM
Quote from: Derek on July 10, 2006, 02:24:25 PM
Saw it. Loved it.
Everyone keeps referring to this movie as sort of a sequel to Superman I & II. But didn't Clark Kent reveal his superidentity to lois at Niagara Falls in Pt. II? Which would kind of make this a sequel only to Superman: The Movie?
He did reveal his identity to her in part II but he erased her memory of it before the end of the movie. More importantly, they had sex in the sequel thus making the subplot of Superman Returns possible.
SPOILER
Okay, but if he erased her memory of having slept with him, her 5 year ols with superpowers would come as a bit of a shock then?
And Superman was without his powers when he slept with Lois Lane. So how would the child inherit his powers?
But, why are you asking these movies to make sense? They aren't even logical to begin with.
Exclusive Interview: DIRECTOR BRYAN SINGER TALKS HOUSE, SUPERMAN II AND X-MEN: THE LAST STAND - PT. 3
In the final installment of our exclusive interview, the director talks about what the future holds for the filmmaker
After a whirlwind of publicity, director Bryan Singer recently granted iF Magazine an exclusive interview to discuss SUPERMAN RETURNS and we conclude the three-part Q and A by discussing his upcoming film projects, his TV show HOUSE, Richard Donner's SUPERMAN II cut and his thoughts on X-MEN: THE LAST STAND.
iF MAGAZINE: When would you make a decision if you were going to jump back in to directing another movie?
SINGER: Part of the vacation is a vacation of the mind, where I test myself to not think about or pressure myself as to what is next.
iF: Does it make you want to go back and do a small film where you're not dealing with pre-vis and heavy special effects. I know MAYOR OF CASTRO STREET has been on the boards for a while for you to direct.
SINGER: That's in the very early stages of development, but yes, it certainly does.
iF: Would it be weird getting back on a set where you don't have a huge blue screen most of the time?
SINGER: Not at all. Between X2 and SUPERMAN RETURNS, I directed the pilot as well as the first episode of HOUSE, M.D. HOUSE was basically [shot in] 15 days, 56 pages, bang, up in Vancouver and then I broke in the L.A. crew in 10 days. I shot the first episode after the pilot and it was just actor's talking on a hospital set. Bang. It was like the USUAL SUSPECTS days, all over again. It was awesome. It was enjoyable too. I had a great cast, I had Hugh Laurie, Robert Sean Leonard, I had these actors I cast and it was this great dialogue, [creator] David Shore is a great writer. It was fun. It was very relaxing. It was serendipitous that it all worked out so well and people liked it so much. But frankly to me, it was the most relaxing shoot I've been on in a long time. It would be nice to go back to that on a film scale. Maybe I'll direct another pilot.
iF: Did you get to see X-MEN: THE LAST STAND?
SINGER: I went opening night to the Mann's Chinese Theater.
iF: It's ironic fans were concerned with you directed the first X-MEN and then they were upset when you weren't doing X-MEN 3.
SINGER: It's not unexpected. Fans are very intense about these things. For me, I know the task of juggling all those characters and adding the new one's you ultimately have to add because of what the audience expects and then there was [director] Brett [Ratner] coming in the process, not in the very beginning. When I do one of these movies, I'm there Day 1. I develop the script, I co-write the story. I'm there from the very, very beginning. Here, he didn't have that option, in light of all that, [the movie is] extremely impressive. And I had a good time. And I ran into Brett at the theater. He was theater hopping and I ran into him, so we ended up talking for a half and hour and people started to come up to us.
iF: How much do you know about Richard Donner's cut of SUPERMAN II that is currently being re-assembled?
SINGER: Oh yeah. Not only am I aware of it, but I ran into Dick on the lot recently and he took me into the editing room with [uncredited SUPERMAN 1 and II screenwriter] Tom Mankiewicz and showed me the first part of it and it was awesome?
iF: So what exactly are they doing? How intensive is this? I thought Donner wasn't involved and now he is?
SINGER: He came in to take a look at it. They had an editor to work on it, and he and Tom came in and were going through it. A lot of it is elements of sequences that were shot and put together. I feel bad we're talking about it, because I'm sure they want to talk about it, but it was such an impressive and fun thing to watch. They took two separate screen tests and cut them together and it's this great scene where Lois Lane puts Clark to the test, because she believes he's Superman and there's a gun involved. That's all I'll say. At first you're watching it and it's very odd to watch these two separate things. It keeps looking differently to your eye. The lighting of the scene and construction of the scene is so good, that by the time the scene pays off you're captivated by it. I watched it in the cutting room. It was a thrill for me. I had just laid the opening credit music for my movie and then suddenly I was in the cutting room in a building across the street watching this with Dick and Tom and it was a thrill?
iF: Are they shooting any additional stuff to link it to SUPERMAN RETURNS?
SINGER: That I don't know. I just watched the first 20 minutes or so. They did want to want to borrow a prop at one point, but I don't know if that was used.
iF: If they borrowed a prop, then they must have been shooting stuff?
SINGER: They did -- they shot certain things. They shot and reconstructed certain things. It isn't for a massive release I don't believe or anything, but they did shoot additional elements. They really went back to Richard Donner's original intention of the film before he left it.
iF: It seems that whenever a filmmaker has a certain level of success, the press and fans always want to tear you down, even if it's not warranted. They did it with Peter Jackson with KING KONG. Instead of focusing on the movie, everyone was talking about running time. Do you feel there was a target on your head for SUPERMAN RETURNS?
SINGER: You're at the mercy of expectation and that is sometimes quite terrifying. This movie has had very mis-reported budget issues for instance. The budget of SUPERMAN RETURNS came in at about $204 million dollars. But somehow, somewhere, maybe they were factoring in past incarnations, which I had nothing to do with or Australian dollars or marketing, I don't know how, somehow, the $250, $300 million figure started being bandied about and no body stopped it. I don't want to sit there declaring the economics of a movie, because they're not really relevant. The movie is relevant. You don't want people to focus on how much money it cost, you want them to focus on the movie. Yet, I start feeling like I'm being portrayed fiscally irresponsible, which I am not and that made me very upset. So then, you have this perception of a very, very expensive movie and you're coming off the success of X-MEN 1 and 2 and it's SUPERMAN and in reality these movies, at the end are extremely profitable. It's still a very expensive movie and you have to achieve certain things, but you're also getting held to a whole other standard and if they don't perform crazy numbers like the previous movies the filmmakers made, every one goes after them. But that's very Hollywood.
iF: What did you think of that L.A. Times article posing the question "Is Superman Gay?"
SINGER: You would have expected that back in the X-MEN days, because that was the subtext there. Here, it was like "what?" My first reaction I looked at it, "oh, great picture of Superman above the fold." It's normal I guess. I was even on Larry King and he asked Brandon [Routh] and he asked me. And I told Larry, "this is probably the most heterosexual movie I've ever made," but in a way, we're in a different age, a much more liberal age and yet sex is always on people's minds and it finds its way into everything. Here is a guy in tights. I don't know. It's an easy leap, I guess.
iF: I don't buy it.
SINGER: I don't buy it either. I just laughed. And Larry said "so you think it's funny." And I'm like, "how could you not." I sat there declaring, "it's so heterosexual" and I'm like, "why do I need to do that." Then I feel stupid, why do I even need to say that. Musicians, politicians, everybody experiences a bit of an attack. It's just the nature of these things. But then, because it's become a story, people have to ask, then I guess if they're not talking, it could be worse, they could not be talking about it at all.
Singer sees 'Superman' sequel for summer '09
Source: Hollywood Reporter
SAN DIEGO -- If director Bryan Singer has his way, Superman will take to the air a second time.
Singer, who directed the current "Superman Returns," told fans Friday at Comic-Con International, that he has had discussions with Warner Bros. Pictures about directing a sequel for release in the summer of 2009.
"Superman Returns," starring Brandon Routh, has grossed $169 million domestically to date, a figure that has been regarded by some observers as a disappointment given the movie's production costs of more than $200 million.
But while Singer stressed that plans for the sequel are still tentative, he expressed his interests in keeping the franchise aloft.
"I plan to get all 'Wrath of Khan' on it," Singer said -- a reference to 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan," which is generally considered as having breathed life into the "Star Trek" franchise after 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" suffered critical barbs. "We haven't concluded a deal. That's always iffy," Singer added. "The intention is to do it for 2009."
Some more info:
BRYAN SINGER CONFIRMS ANOTHER SUPERMAN MOVIE
The big news today at Comic-Con was Bryan Singer confirming that 2009 is target release date for the next SUPERMAN movie that he will direct. Although he admits it's still too early to talk about story, he did offer the following tidbits of info.
"I only have ideas," he notes saying he wants to build on the mythology he created in SUPERMAN RETURNS in terms "certain reveals and a great sense of unresolved and romantic dilemma Superman faces."
"I will probably take the characters as they've been established in SUPERMAN RETURNS and move from there," Singer says. "But this will be the starting place, kind of like X-MEN 1. I had to find a place to begin to educate people who weren't familiar with that universe and here there is a whole generation not familiar with Superman, and there is a lot of value to having them return to the Donner universe and continue forward. It was always a delicate balance, particularly the character this steeped in history and ubiquitous because he means so much to so many people all over the world."
Singer also adds, "And now that the characters are established, I'd like to take it as an opportunity to bring in perhaps a more threatening, foreboding element."
Could this mean Brainiac might be on tap as a super-villain in the next film?
"We were talking about that," he reveals. "We were having a Brainiac conversation, but I don't know."
Singer also noted he's still contemplating a fuller 3-D version of SUPERMAN RETURNS in IMAX with the Return to Krypton sequence restored which might offer up an even more modified cut of the film currently in theaters. This release could happen as early as next year if the financials are worked out. Additionally, Singer says he'd like to fit in a smaller film before he begins work on his SUPERMAN follow-up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive: Singer on Superman Sequel & DVD
ComingSoon.net/SuperheroHype.com got to talk exclusively to Superman Returns director Bryan Singer on Friday and we asked him about the possible sequel, the DVD and what he's planning on doing next:
CS/SHH: Is the sequel going to happen?
Singer: Yes, probably for a 2009 release.
CS/SHH: You planted a lot of seeds in the first film, what do you want to cover in the second film?
Singer: I'd like to build on the seeds that are planted, you know, expand upon relationships, you've got now a child, you've got these other elements, but also have the opportunity to have the characters more established to bring in some more action and have some more stuff going on.
CS/SHH: In the comic adaptation there were little hints that the New Krypton settled into orbit.
Singer: Yeah, New Krypton has got these crystals on it, so anything's possible.
CS/SHH: What do you have in store for us on the DVD?
Singer: A number of things. There's the in-movie experience where during the movie you'll be able to pop-off to the set and see things live as they were shot. There's things like that. Plus we had a continuous presence of video on the set to the point... there's a lot of funny, interesting, kind of theater that you don't get to ordinarily see in the documentary material and then there will be deleted scenes.
CS/SHH: Do you want to do the entire sequel in 3-D?
Singer: I'd like to do more, I don't know how that whole experience would work out, depends how long the film is, it will probably be shorter.
CS/SHH: What's next for you?
Singer: Possibly a smaller film and a grand vacation.
I finally got around to seeing this after delaying so long that I wasnt sure I even wanted to see it anymore. I had been away from the cinema for over two months and I returned to find myself irritated at its idiotic adverts and smartarse patrons. But as soon as the credits started I was glad I went. This was a perfect refresher of the joys of big screen entertainment in the summer. There is no avoiding media chatter re:budgets and box office in this season and this film has taught me that I should always see a film in its opening weekend before that crap has clouded my mind.
All in all: job well-done.
My favourite bits: The x-ray elevator shot and subsequent "can you read my mind: part 2" sequence. And Martha Kent outisde the hospital.
Jude Law Could Play General Zod In 'Superman Returns' Sequel
Source: StarPulse
Jude Law could be Superman's arch enemy. The Alfie actor is in talks to appear as the Man of Steel's most hated foe General Zod in the Superman Returns sequel. The role of General Zod was made famous by Terence Stamp, who played the character in 1980 movie Superman 2 – and producers see a resemblance between Stamp and Law.
A source told Daily Express newspaper: "Zod is going to be the main bad guy in the second film. Some say they should use an unknown but the director Bryan Singer is looking at Jude. The similarities between him and Stamp are clear."
The 33-year-old has so far steered clear of superhero movies, fearing they would typecast him and ruin his chances of starring in other film genres. Just two years ago Law turned down the role of Superman.
He said at the time: "My greatest fear is that a role like that would define me. Do I want to be known from here on in as Superman? I'd feel the same way about James Bond. They are iconic characters and there is also pressure in stepping into someone else's tights."
The Superman Returns sequel will see Brandon Routh return as the Man of Steel and Kevin Spacey will reprise his role as Lex Luther.
Superman dead?
Source: Moviehole
Is the recently relaunched "Superman" series over before it's even begun? Maybe. Variety has an interesting article up today, suggesting that the Man of Steel might have flown by his cloud.
Anything you hear about the "Superman Returns" sequel – for instance, those rumours about Jude Law playing General Zod – is premature. A "Superman Returns" sequel isn't a sure-thing, because the first film has lost a trough of money, says the trade. If the studio does greenlight a second chapter, it will have to be much, much cheaper.
Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures have a shot at breaking even on "Superman" once all the revenue streams are accounted for, but it's going to be a long, tough haul.
According to the trade, Warners and Legendary -- which splits all profits with the studio down the middle -- are counting on strong home entertainment sales to make up for slower-than-expected box office.
If the DVD does – excuse the pun – take off, then a "Superman Returns" sequel is possible – Bryan Singer has hinted that he'd be keen to get it in theatres in 2009 - but it's not going to be the uber-expensive venture that the first film was.
I dont think thats accurate... I mean the movie made $400 million worldwide, and even though its not a lot, its way more that the $250 it cost to be made. Add marketing costs and stuff, but then you can sure add another big chunk coming from sponsors, endorsements, and of course DVD sales and TV. At the end, you make money either way. Also, considering that the budget of the film wasnt $250, but a little less than $200. Problem was they spent a lot of money also trying to make this movie for years before they actually made it.
Finnally saw this and thank heavins I saw it on Imax, otherwise I'd felt completely pissed. I don't understand why they keep doing these dumb, empty action movies so incredibly long. They kill the emotion. I liked parts of it, granted, Bryan Singer has lots of classy touches, Spacey shows why he should play villains more often, some of the special effects sequences where jaw dropping. But it's just too long and not that interesting. Superman is kind of a boring character. No real dark side. They try to please everyone and cover every corner and we end up watching those dreadful last ten or fifteen minutes (maybe teinty?), when all it's said and done and time is spent on all those "closure" scenes, totally predictable even for hollywood popcorn summer crappy standards.
I noticed they carefully studied Spider Man 1 and 2 and aimed to extract the ingredients that worked for that one and use them here, and it was so evident to me that it kind of bugged me...
yeah, this generally sucked.
Quote from: Brazoliange on August 14, 2006, 10:35:34 PM
yeah, this generally sucked.
you are a valuable member of society
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 14, 2006, 10:58:39 PM
Quote from: Brazoliange on August 14, 2006, 10:35:34 PM
yeah, this generally sucked.
you are a valuable member of society
We all can't be as insightful as you. I remember your Art School Confidential review.
Quote from: RegularKarate on May 14, 2006, 10:30:50 PM
a couple decent laughs, but overall, it's shit.
Fair enough, but I didn't wait until almost 30 pages to write that... I was only a few reviews in.
Let's look at facts though... this is pretty much all he does.
I was mainly defending Superman using his own tactics.
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 15, 2006, 12:04:04 AM
Let's look at facts though... this is pretty much all he does.
You and Pubes notice these trends. I seem to follow 10 posters and notice everyone else as a blur. I claim ignorance.
Bryan Singer on the Superman Sequel
TODAYonline caught up with Superman Returns director Bryan Singer, who talked a bit more about the sequel. Here's a clip:
However, at July's annual Comic Con International in San Diego, a convention of comic book, film and science fiction fans, Singer had revealed that the follow-up film would have more action.
"I plan to get all 'Wrath of Khan' on it," he told convention goers at the time, referring to the 1982 film Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Asked to expand on his remarks, Singer told TODAY: "What I was referring to was the fact that, when you do a first film like X-Men, for example, you're introducing a world and a set of characters.
"Once those characters are introduced, once we've lived with them for awhile and we know them, when you get into a second film like an Empire Strikes Back (sequel to Star Wars: A New Hope) or a Wrath of Khan, you can make an action-adventure film and you don't have to bank all that time getting to know the characters. Now you can raise the stakes, raise the jeopardy and make a leaner, meaner movie."
You can read the full interview in PDF format:
http://www.todayonline.com/pdf_open.asp?id=2209FCL056
Looks like more action. The fact that Superman didn't pull one punch throughout the movie irritated me. When you have a budget of $270 million, I just assumed the movie was going to have absurd amounts of action.
It's amazing to me that Singer has to feel ashamed of Superman Returns or at least make a statement that the next film will be better, not in the Joel Silver-Matrix Reloaded way but in an apologetic manner. OK, you're trying to get the fanboys excited by saying that you're going to Wrath of Khan the next one but that implies that Returns is as bad as that first Star Trek movie.
Regardless of what the reviews were and the fan reaction was (all of which seemed to be split right down the middle), he should at least stand firm behind his film and not be bullied by WB into making even subtle apologies like this just because it didn't make $200 million.
Quote from: McfLy on September 25, 2006, 06:05:42 PM
When you have a budget of $270 million, I just assumed the movie was going to have absurd amounts of action.
This is exactly why we shouldn't know how much these movies cost. If the movie cost $50 million, you'd be amazed at how they stretched the dollar and you'd be impressed. The film's budget should have no bearing on our perception of it but there's no going back from that now, unfortunately. Instead of letting the word out that these movies are costing so much money to show how big their dicks are, the studios should lie to us about how much a movie really costs. They can lie to us about the quality but they can't lie to us about how much it costs?
Supe Sequel Flying?
Singer rumored to have green light for second Superman.
While the film's initial box office performance failed to floor Warner Bros., Superman Returns has now grossed over $200 million domestically. That could be enough for the studio to green light a sequel to the Bryan Singer-directed flick.
In fact, the IESB.net website is reporting that a second film in the newly relaunched franchise is now officially "go." The site claims that Singer has just reached an agreement with Warners and that the movie will get underway next fall.
The catch is apparently that Singer's $260 million budget on the first film has been sliced and diced. The follow-up flick, which will reportedly feature more action than the first, may have a budget in the $140-$175 million range.
The website adds that Superman will have the "battle of his life" in the sequel while facing off with "one of the ultimate baddies" in the DC Comics universe.
Sequel to 'Superman Returns' due in 2009
The sequel to "Superman Returns," which grossed nearly $200 million in the U.S. this year, will likely hit theaters in 2009, University of Hawai'i Academy for Creative Media director Chris Lee confirmed today.
Lee, who will return as executive producer of the film, hosted "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer and producer Jon Peters at a wide-ranging discussion with ACM students today at UH.
Singer and Peters are in Honolulu this week to celebrate Lee's birthday, and to begin planning the next Superman film, which will likely begin production mid- to late next year in a location yet to be determined. "Superman Returns" was shot in Sydney, Australia, with four ACM students serving as interns.
Singer acknowledged that he has also been approached to direct the next "X-Men" movie — he directed the first two well-received films before turning over the reigns for the third installment to Brett Ratner — but said he wouldn't have time to take on another large-scale project before the next Superman gets underway. He is interested, however, in seeing the script for the "X-Men" spinoff "Wolverine."
While Lee said that planning for the next Superman film is just getting underway, he did say that he would once again look at using Hawai'i-based businesses for some of the post-production.
IMDB is listing the sequel as "Superman: THe Man of Steel"
Look! Up at the Screen!
-Jon Handelman
Wrapping up food makes no long term sense because any packaging has no practical use after it's opened. Waste is created at the exact moment something is eaten. Where does the garbage go? We're told to forget about it. It's hauled off somewhere, a place that we don't live anyways, and that's not our problem. Out of sight, out of mind. On to the next candy bar.
I went to go see "Superman Returns" last week. It was without any doubt whatsoever the worst movie ever created. Superman...SUPERMAN...does not throw a single punch. Think about that while reading the reviews in the papers...reviews telling us what a "super" movie this is, how the dichotomy between Lois Lane and Superman is compelling, the effects amazing, and the casting flawless, all the while ignoring the immense amount of garbage that's spewed out. This derision of a film has Superman throwing away his problems time and time again, from the middle climax, where Supes throws a plunging rocket into space, to the ending climax where he throws the dreaded Kryptonite island (which should have killed him before he picked it up)...into space. That's right: Superman treats his problems like you treat your packaged food. Don't even get me started on the awful dialogue and the cheesy plot.
There's a large segment of your reading this right now, and you're scrunching your faces and shaking your heads and going "Oh you're just too picky! What did you expect?" I'll tell you something: this IS what I expected...but when you expect a grandparent to die, it doesn't make the tragedy any easier to endure. And how stupid is this that we have to keep lowering our expectations for multi-million dollar movies? People are homeless on the streets while other people can be rich by making films, and we're not meant to enjoy it too much? Come on.
There's nothing more irritating than someone with low expectations because their always content with the least possible, and being happy with the worst, gets them the worst. These are the guys who are happy to mop floors for twelve hours a day, who are smiling while being the fry guy, the happy go lucky folks who whistle as they flip burgers. Ultimately, they make things worse for the rest of us...because one person who's willing to put up with a poor standard of living will attract imitators, until everyone is forced to put up with these newfound shoddy standards that eventually become the norm.
In terms of how much credit we gave this movie, "Superman Returns" speaks volumes about who and where we are as a culture. It preaches to us about our longings for the freedom to escape our going-nowhere lives. It computer-generates our desires to solve world problems that seem too big and far away to care about. Most of all, it confirms our suspicions about needing a white male saviour to solve our problems, helpless little pawns that we are.
We live in garbage land, and we tend our fields of refuse as our polluted skies shower down us with acid rain. As always, art imitates life, and is reflected back to us through the magic of Hollywood. The critics have spoken, and they like what they see. Do we?
myspace.com/jonhandelman
what an amazing waste of letters that review was.
:shock:
Quote from: shnorff on January 16, 2007, 01:31:55 PM
Look! Up at the Screen!
-Jon Handelman
Wrapping up food makes no long term sense because any packaging has no practical use after it's opened. Waste is created at the exact moment something is eaten. Where does the garbage go? We're told to forget about it. It's hauled off somewhere, a place that we don't live anyways, and that's not our problem. Out of sight, out of mind. On to the next candy bar.
I went to go see "Superman Returns" last week. It was without any doubt whatsoever the worst movie ever created. Superman...SUPERMAN...does not throw a single punch. Think about that while reading the reviews in the papers...reviews telling us what a "super" movie this is, how the dichotomy between Lois Lane and Superman is compelling, the effects amazing, and the casting flawless, all the while ignoring the immense amount of garbage that's spewed out. This derision of a film has Superman throwing away his problems time and time again, from the middle climax, where Supes throws a plunging rocket into space, to the ending climax where he throws the dreaded Kryptonite island (which should have killed him before he picked it up)...into space. That's right: Superman treats his problems like you treat your packaged food. Don't even get me started on the awful dialogue and the cheesy plot.
There's a large segment of your reading this right now, and you're scrunching your faces and shaking your heads and going "Oh you're just too picky! What did you expect?" I'll tell you something: this IS what I expected...but when you expect a grandparent to die, it doesn't make the tragedy any easier to endure. And how stupid is this that we have to keep lowering our expectations for multi-million dollar movies? People are homeless on the streets while other people can be rich by making films, and we're not meant to enjoy it too much? Come on.
There's nothing more irritating than someone with low expectations because their always content with the least possible, and being happy with the worst, gets them the worst. These are the guys who are happy to mop floors for twelve hours a day, who are smiling while being the fry guy, the happy go lucky folks who whistle as they flip burgers. Ultimately, they make things worse for the rest of us...because one person who's willing to put up with a poor standard of living will attract imitators, until everyone is forced to put up with these newfound shoddy standards that eventually become the norm.
In terms of how much credit we gave this movie, "Superman Returns" speaks volumes about who and where we are as a culture. It preaches to us about our longings for the freedom to escape our going-nowhere lives. It computer-generates our desires to solve world problems that seem too big and far away to care about. Most of all, it confirms our suspicions about needing a white male saviour to solve our problems, helpless little pawns that we are.
We live in garbage land, and we tend our fields of refuse as our polluted skies shower down us with acid rain. As always, art imitates life, and is reflected back to us through the magic of Hollywood. The critics have spoken, and they like what they see. Do we?
myspace.com/jonhandelman
I feel dumber for having read that.
No. I did not write that. But he really sums up how i felt about this film.
Although Superman was techincally brilliant, beautiful, bedazzling, (seriously, it's gorgeous) it was a really Irresponsible film. Irresponsible to the point where it teaches us (and mostly kids) to throw away their problems instead of solving them. "Let's just throw this into space...and this...and this too!" And that really does reflect where we are as a culture, and it's wrong to accept it. I mean, i love comics, super heroes...the whole shabang, and i'm not one of those "That's not what it was like in the comics!" type of guy, but i do wish they spent some time making a movie with a valuable message or some credible action, instead of just...throwing shit away.
And i know i'm rambling but fuckin a, we don't even get to see superman kick ass. Oh! But we're treated to superman in a fucking hospital. How the fuck are doctors going to take care of Superman? SUPERMAN!!!!! SUPERMAN...in a hospital bed. Fuck.
Oh and i know you guys are going to flame over all this complaining but holy shit, did anyone else notice the superman S symbol on his belt. What the fuck was that? Did they think we were gonna miss that discrete, tiny logo he has embeded on his chest? That's just silly. what the fuck?
I don't know about the "superman teaching us kids to throw away our problems into space" (or something along those lines), but many people did forgive SUPERMAN RETURNS many, MANY, i think way too many common places. I don't understand how something so predictable can be actually considered entertaning, let alone "good" or "exciting". It's overlong, totally forgettable by any standard, a complete fast food movie with not even the pleasure of true flavor.
Lately, a lot of these "products" are being treated so easily by critics and "cinephiles": King Kong, Cars (actually winning awards now), Bond (one of the best of the year???), MI3....I mean what the fuck is going on? Why are standards so low?
I totaly agree.
I remember thinking this when the academy started to nominate shitty movies because most of their viewers hadn't seen the good ones (see: pirates of the caribbean, crash).
Quote from: shnorff on January 17, 2007, 08:17:34 PM
I remember thinking this when the academy started to nominate shitty movies because most of their viewers hadn't seen the good ones (see: pirates of the caribbean, crash).
You mean "since the Academy was created"? That's when that started.
Maybe you're new to liking movies, but this review is like the drunken babble of someone who says the same thing about movies over and over. Whatever is new that's out that they don't like "is the worst movie ever" and "just goes to show you how bad movies are".
Superman didn't make much money. Some people liked it, others didn't. No one is giving Superman credit for changing cinema.
His very first-year college point of "it confirms our suspicions about needing a white male saviour to solve our problems" is a watered down Kevin Smith rant and "superman does not throw a single punch" reveals just how little he really knows about what he claims to.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 17, 2007, 07:32:38 PM
I mean what the fuck is going on? Why are standards so low?
finally we agree on something again:
Quote from: Pubrick on January 10, 2007, 03:30:32 AM
i haven't seen any other year with standards being lowered so much.
and that "review" shnorff posted is worse than anything JG has ever linked. ok maybe
as bad.
Quote from: RegularKarate on January 17, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
His very first-year college point of "it confirms our suspicions about needing a white male saviour to solve our problems" is a watered down Kevin Smith rant.
That's an insult to first-year college students everywhere!
Quote from: matt35mm on January 17, 2007, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on January 17, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
His very first-year college point of "it confirms our suspicions about needing a white male saviour to solve our problems" is a watered down Kevin Smith rant.
That's an insult to first-year college students everywhere!
i've got it: it's like a kevin smith rant from his first year of college, if it was posted as a link by JG, and reviewed positively by silias and brazoliange.
:bravo:
Superman Sequel Scrapped?
Man of Steel may join JLA instead.
Last week's news that Bryan Singer was developing a new thriller with his Usual Suspects screenwriter Chris McQuarrie sparked the speculation that the director's Superman sequel may have stalled.
Now comes a report that claims the sequel may have been scrapped entirely, but that doesn't mean Brandon Routh will be retiring his Super-duds anytime soon.
According to Moviehole.net, Warner Bros. is considering postponing (or outright shelving) a direct sequel to Superman Returns in favor of putting the Man of Steel in their recently announced Justice League of America movie.
The site adds that Batman would not be involved in the Justice League film, leaving that franchise separate from both Superman and JLA.
IGN heard the same rumors over the weekend, but our inquiries to our Superman sources had gone unanswered at time of publish.