Superman Writer/Director Confirmed [Archive]

Joe Wagner

02-14-2002, 11:37 AM

NOOO!!!! I'm a huge Superman fan and I don't think this is the way to go. Every once in a while Supes will make a joke but at the same time he's not Spidey. One liners aren't his forte. Geez, maybe WB forgot which 'S' character they were going to make a movie for. Either that or they need to take a lesson from the recent Marvel movies (X-men, Blade, upcoming Spidey) about the importance of correct characterization and marketing. Maybe a movie of Supes vs Braniac would work but not this.

-Joe!

TimTwoFace

02-14-2002, 12:50 PM

I don't like this news at all.

I mean, I saw CHARLIE'S ANGELS and...well...that movie BLEW. Seriously, I actually liked BATMAN & ROBIN more than that movie. What, are they going to put Bill Murray in the SUPERMAN suit now? (Hey...that would be "light and funny", wouldn't it?)

Ugh. Why did they ever get rid of the Kevin Smith draft? I haven't read it but considering his knowledge and respect for the characters, that should've been the one to go with. Or get someone from the comics, animated show, a SMALLVILLE writer, anything, to write the script.

Bah.

As for Tim Burton...I wouldn't want to see him do SUPERMAN. It would be an interesting experiment and all, and it would make him darker (which is fine, SUperman ain't all about fun in the sunshine, ya know?), but go with a classical version of the Big Blue Boy Scout first. McG might be a good enough director (CHARLIE'S ANGELS at least was visually pleasing...I guess), but they need a good script, too.

I wonder what Nicolas Cage thinks of this.

-Tim

Apache Chief

02-14-2002, 12:52 PM

This is terrible, terrible news. Superman should be an adventure, not a comedy.

Palin Dromos

02-14-2002, 03:09 PM

Seriously, though I am both worried and not so worried.

Mainly I think this is just another false start, we'll worry for a few months and then something'll happen. Look at it this way- McG's next project is a SEQUEL and not only a SEQUEL but a sequel to a BAD MOVIE. It'll tank and WB'll pull the plug again.

If I'm wrong (which has been known to happen) then we must all tremble in fear of the horror that is McG-Film director.

I agree 100% with Matt Wilson this is B&R all over again. The WB wanted to go "light and funny" with that film and look what it did to the Batman franchise!

McG is not a film director, he does music videos and though I don't think a artist should be limited in his art, he compleatly missed the mark with his film debut, it was one LOOOOONG music video. I was watching it and listening and thinking "Hey he's just grabbing all the cool new age pop music that any editor would love to play around with, cutting something to it and saying 'Here's a movie'" The whole thing was like an exercise in editing to music, no plot or characters, no decsernible value what so ever.

Whew

So in short- Be afraid...be very afraid...

Houman

02-14-2002, 05:46 PM

Well, at least he's just the director, not the writer. If the screenplay by the Dawson's Creek guy is well-written and serious, then maybe having the music video guy direct will work out great...I hope!

JohnCrichton

02-14-2002, 05:53 PM

Gaht dammit..... McG's a neat kid n' all and Charlies Angels was.... fun.... but Superman's suppose to be epic of all epics!

Who the hell makes these decisions?!!?

Gee, can we get nipples on the Superman costume too!

As for Burton, well..... if I remember right, he wanted to make it so that Superman couldn't fly.

Writer of Felicity and the Director of CA.... yup, that's Batman & Robin alright.

*sigh*

:(

Why do they hate me?

Maxie Zeus

02-14-2002, 06:13 PM

What exactly is McG's track record? What's he done?

Do you mind if I reserve judgement on this? I remember when Tim Burton was announced as helming "Batman." Burton: the guy whose known track record consisted of "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and "Beetlejuice." And Michael ("Mr. Mom") Keaton was going to be Batman.

The Penguin

02-14-2002, 06:14 PM

Well I just don't want Clark to be a complete dork :rolleyes: like in the other movies. After seeing "Lois & Clark" and "Smallville" I don't think I could handle that.

Matt-Man

02-14-2002, 06:37 PM

Was he referring to the rumors of Tim Burton directing Superman or his Batman movies? and what do you think of this, Jim? You're probably the best person to ask the opinion of. :D

James Harvey

02-14-2002, 06:40 PM

I can't really say I'm happy for this. I rented the CHARLIES ANGEL'S DVD not too long ago and listened to the commentary. It seemed that his main objective for making the movie was to make "fun" movie with alot of "music" and "action". Granted, a Superman movie should have action, but I can't see Superman kicking butt whenb "Baby's Got Back" is playing in the background. I'm mixed with this. He did some good shots in the movie, but overall the movie was sort of bland and lifeless. It was a complete popcorn, bubbly movie with no real plot, development, or anything. I'm glad he's not doing Batman, but I can't really say I'm happy be's doing Superman, either.

Matt-Man

02-14-2002, 06:45 PM

Good point. and if he was doing Batman it would probably end up a remake of Batman and Robin. And i hope that doesn't happen anytime soon! I just hope he doesn't do anything to destroy Superman like Shumacher did Batman .

CadaverousEyes

02-14-2002, 06:49 PM

Hahahahahahaha, looks like Warner Brothers have forgotten that it was Burton's "crap" that brought Batman back into the limelight to begin with and Schumacher's "lighter, funnier" Batman that took him out of it. Now, Superman is very different from Batman, but which is the preferred movie, Superman 2 or Superman 3?

Terminatah

02-14-2002, 06:58 PM

They should have brought back Richard Donner, who was primarily responsible for the success of the only decent Superman movie; the first one.

-Terminatah

Mattashell

02-14-2002, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
What exactly is McG's track record? What's he done?

Do you mind if I reserve judgement on this? I remember when Tim Burton was announced as helming "Batman." Burton: the guy whose known track record consisted of "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and "Beetlejuice." And Michael ("Mr. Mom") Keaton was going to be Batman.

Here's what I could gleen from the imdb:

McG

Birth name
Joseph McGinty Nichol
Sometimes Credited As:
Joseph McGinty Nichol

Director - filmography
(2000s) (1990s)

Charlie's Angels 2 (2003)
Charlie's Angels (2000)
... aka 3 Engel für Charlie (2000) (Germany)
Korn-Who Then Now? (1997) (V)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

supermanpal

02-14-2002, 09:10 PM

I didn't this was posted already because i was looking to see if somebody from the board already post it. But didn't see it because sometime when i go the the 1 because i save 6 on to my favorites, i get still the old post and he post don't change until i go to a other post so in other words my bad. I just hope he makes the the movie the ways it's suppose to be made and not make it bad like batman and Robin. :) :)

Jim Harvey: I merged this post with the previous McG/Superman thread

cysurf

02-14-2002, 09:43 PM

Just wait until they start casting. I'm sure that will be even more painful then knowing the director did Charlie's Angels. At least we will get Destiny's Child singing "Independent Superhero" on the soundtrack. :rolleyes:

supermanpal

02-14-2002, 10:01 PM

What kind of music would go good with the movie anyway

How about the people that made the superman movie in the late 70's that was a good movie. Mybe he could get some ideas from them to make a good superman movie.

Jeff Harris

02-14-2002, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
Well, WB has officially announced the writer/director team for the new upcoming Superman movie. McG will direct and J.J Abrams (Alias) will write.

Well, here's hoping Superman won't become a Charlie's Angels/Felicity hybrid.

But one thing's bothering me.

Was Jeph Loeb busy?

I mean, he's a comic writer knowing the characters of Superman for the past couple of years, not to mention that he has a Hollywood track record prior to becoming a part of the comic community.

Once again, the question lingers . . . was Jeph Loeb too busy?

Harvey Dent

02-14-2002, 11:50 PM

Personally, I'd like to put Richard Donner in the director's chair, give him a copy of John Byrne's "Man Of Steel" mini series, and let him go from there. I mean, if Batman is going to get a reboot with Year One, why not do the same for Big Blue? This way, if both heroes are ever put together in the same movie, at least there would be some kind of consistency.

Terminatah

02-15-2002, 07:18 AM

I just looked up J.J. Abrams's filmography, and check it out:

1. "Alias" (2001) TV Series (writer) (as J.J. Abrams)
2. Joy Ride (2001/I) (written by) (as J.J. Abrams)
3. Armageddon (1998) (screenplay) (as J.J. Abrams)
4. Gone Fishin' (1997) (written by)
5. Forever Young (1992) (written by)
6. Regarding Henry (1991) (written by)
7. Taking Care of Business (1990) (written by)

Now, I've never seen Alias, Gone Fishin', or Regarding Henry, but I did see Taking Care of Business, Forever Young, Armageddon, and Joy Ride, and they all RULED HARD. I feel so much better about this Superman project now. Maybe it will be less McG and more J.J.

Oh, and P.S.-- he was a director and executive producer on Felicity, not a writer.

-Terminatah

cysurf

02-15-2002, 10:44 AM

I think as long as the director takes the material serious and doesn't try to make some stupid pointless film for a paycheck, then we could be okay. I have seen other Joel Schumacher films and they were not bad. So why he made those horrible Batman movies like he did was beyond me. I just hope this McG character doesn't try to make superman "hip" or something. Sigh.......

Cosmocat

02-15-2002, 01:19 PM

You guys all need to calm down. Seriously. You think that McG will make a silly Superman based on his ONE previous movie? I don't get it. The reason Charlie's Angels was so silly and such was because it was the ONLY way it would work! He was SMART enough to know that! I just don't understand how you guys think his Superman will be exactly the same...I really don't get it.

The guy will deliver. Trust me.

Manhunter

02-15-2002, 01:50 PM

Decided I'd add this little link here.Tells the whole story of the sordid mess involving the Superman movie.

Right here (http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/files/Forum30/HTML/007213.html)

Ed Liu

02-15-2002, 02:01 PM

Howdy,

Originally posted by Terminatah
They should have brought back Richard Donner, who was primarily responsible for the success of the only decent Superman movie; the first one.

Unfortunately, I don't think Richard Donner coming back is ever going to happen. Apparently, there was a big stink raised between him and WB over the first Superman movie, resulting in Donner's removal from the 2nd one, which was already partially filmed. When Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) complained about this to the press, they removed her from the franchise and put in Lana Lang instead (ever wonder why Lois doesn't do much in Superman III?). At least we got Annette O'Toole in something. Check http://us.imdb.com/Title?0078346 (the IMDb entry for Superman) and hit the "Trivia" link on the left. Then check the "Trivia" links for the other movies to get the whole sordid mess of a story.

And now they're handing the franchise to McG. I can only hope that 20 years from now, people won't be able to spell his name anymore after he slips off the face of the planet into film oblivion, along with every other hip ex-music-video-or-TV-commercial-director-in-dire-need-of-a-Ritalin-IV-drip. Or the surgical implantation of an attention span.

-- Ed/Ace

TimTwoFace

02-15-2002, 03:37 PM

It's not the McG part of this news that bothers me, it's the "lighter, funnier Superman" stuff I've heard. This is exactly what Joel Schumacher said prior to the release of BATMAN & ROBIN, and, well...need I explain?

I saw CHARLIE'S ANGELS...the script blew chunks but the directing wasn't bad. It's the writing and the acting I'm concerned about; I think that McG should do a good enough job.

-Tim

Cosmocat

02-15-2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by TimTwoFace
It's not the McG part of this news that bothers me, it's the "lighter, funnier Superman" stuff I've heard. This is exactly what Joel Schumacher said prior to the release of BATMAN & ROBIN, and, well...need I explain?

I saw CHARLIE'S ANGELS...the script blew chunks but the directing wasn't bad. It's the writing and the acting I'm concerned about; I think that McG should do a good enough job.

-Tim

But I ask you -- who has actually said that the new Superman will be "lighter and funnier"? I mean, Superman is not Batman, so there's always room for humor and such, but the fact that they're trying to make a "more update and hip" Superman is not a bad thing. As long as they stay true to the essence of the character (which I think they will), then most people will be happy and entertained.

CadaverousEyes

02-15-2002, 04:28 PM

Now that I understand that by "Burton crap" they mean what he had planned for the movie, I'm going to be a bit more optimistic about this. Nothing can be worse than Lexiac and the supermobile.

Mattashell

02-15-2002, 08:30 PM

I've never seen Charlie's Angels. I wouldn't want to. But I would not assume that this will be a bad movie based on that as everyone here does. I don't assume it will be good. We just have to wait and see. I'd like to remind everyone, that Spike Jonz started as a video director. I'm assuming many of you enjoyed Being John Malkavich. David Fincher, director of Seven, and Fight Club among others also started as a music video director (and many fans of the Alien series didn't like his first film, Alien3, either.)

Reguarding Schumacher, he is, in fact, a very good director (Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down). He does not, however, make indie films. I'm absolutely sure he was handed the Batman films and told how to do them, and he did what was asked of him, as any director for hire would. It is also important to remember that Tim Burton was a producer on Batman Forever, and a producer wields even more power on a studio film than the director.

Matta

Terminatah

02-16-2002, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Ace the Bathound
Howdy,

Unfortunately, I don't think Richard Donner coming back is ever going to happen. Apparently, there was a big stink raised between him and WB over the first Superman movie, resulting in Donner's removal from the 2nd one, which was already partially filmed. When Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) complained about this to the press, they removed her from the franchise and put in Lana Lang instead (ever wonder why Lois doesn't do much in Superman III?). At least we got Annette O'Toole in something. Check http://us.imdb.com/Title?0078346 (the IMDb entry for Superman) and hit the "Trivia" link on the left. Then check the "Trivia" links for the other movies to get the whole sordid mess of a story.

-- Ed/Ace I know, that's why I said they SHOULD'VE given it back to Donner. As it lies now, the studio's logic was that because Donner made the first film so great, they could afford to get rid of him. And hey, that's great logic if you're some kind of idiot.

Originally posted by Cosmocat
You guys all need to calm down. Seriously. You think that McG will make a silly Superman based on his ONE previous movie? I don't get it. The reason Charlie's Angels was so silly and such was because it was the ONLY way it would work! He was SMART enough to know that!The thing is, Charlie's Angels didn't work at all.

Originally posted by Cosmocat
I just don't understand how you guys think his Superman will be exactly the same...I really don't get it.

The guy will deliver. Trust me. Yah, except McG sucks, Charlie's Angels sucked, and if he is the creative force behind Superman, it is guaranteed to suck.

-Terminatah

Terminatah

02-16-2002, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Manhunter
Decided I'd add this little link here.Tells the whole story of the sordid mess involving the Superman movie.

Right here (http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/files/Forum30/HTML/007213.html) That's pretty amazing. What about firing this guy Peters and hiring some kind of ape to produce the film? You guys think?

-Terminatah

Cosmocat

02-16-2002, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Terminatah
I know, that's why I said they SHOULD'VE given it back to Donner. As it lies now, the studio's logic was that because Donner made the first film so great, they could afford to get rid of him. And hey, that's great logic if you're some kind of idiot.

The thing is, Charlie's Angels didn't work at all.

Yah, except McG sucks, Charlie's Angels sucked, and if he is the creative force behind Superman, it is guaranteed to suck.

-Terminatah

Well, if that's what you think. McG is a very smart director. Those who actually know about directing would probably agree with me...

Terminatah

02-16-2002, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

Well, if that's what you think. McG is a very smart director. Those who actually know about directing would probably agree with me... That's great, except that's the most ignorant comment I've heard in my entire life. Cheers.

-Terminatah

X-human

02-16-2002, 03:01 PM

I don't have anyting against McG (I've never seen his films, to many better ones out there), but I think Burton was a better choice (although this history of Supe 5 frightens me, poor Kevin Smith). Batman 1989 wasn't a good movie, it just wasn't a bad movie. I rather have a movie that didn't suck, so I'm a big supported of returning to Burton. But perhaps The Matrix's Wachowski Brothers would be a much better choice for directors. I don't want to tight cast them, but these guys are big fans of good action, comics, anime and know how to keep MTV producers happy while not tainting their films.

Richard Donner, is of course, the best choice. His Superman has remained unsurpased even after all these years, and he's gone on record saying he had a million stories to tell for Superman, so digging up a comic story arc we all know and cramming it into two hours wouldn't be needed. I think someone who loves Superman as much as him could be talked into working on a new Superman, as long as Jon Peters is sent to take a nap with the fishies.

So, for the love of god, support People Against Jon Peters.
http://www.welcome.to/pajp/

Cosmocat

02-16-2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Terminatah
That's great, except that's the most ignorant comment I've heard in my entire life. Cheers.

-Terminatah

Ignorant? How is that ignorant. he-who-knows-it-all?

Terminatah

02-16-2002, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

Ignorant? How is that ignorant. he-who-knows-it-all? Well, first you implied that I knew nothing about directing because my opinion conflicted with yours, and now you're belittling what I said with a scorching nickname. Why don't we discuss the high and low points of McG's directorial performance in Charlie's Angels?

-Terminatah

Cosmocat

02-16-2002, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Terminatah
Well, first you implied that I knew nothing about directing because my opinion conflicted with yours, and now you're belittling what I said with a scorching nickname. Why don't we discuss the high and low points of McG's directorial performance in Charlie's Angels?

-Terminatah

We can, if you want.

1. A stroke of genius to hire Russell Carpenter. This man really
knows how to shoot a movie. This choice was all McG, and that's one point for him.

2. He knew that if the film took itself seriously in any way, it would be the kiss of death. Everyone here can say what they will about Charlie's Angels, but there are many people who liked the film, and the box office receipts prove it.

Should I go on?

Terminatah

02-16-2002, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

We can, if you want.

1. A stroke of genius to hire Russell Carpenter. This man really
knows how to shoot a movie. This choice was all McG, and that's one point for him.This doesn't exactly make him James Cameron.

Originally posted by Cosmocat
2. He knew that if the film took itself seriously in any way, it would be the kiss of death. Everyone here can say what they will about Charlie's Angels, but there are many people who liked the film, and the box office receipts prove it.Box office receipts do not a good movie make.

Originally posted by Cosmocat
Should I go on? Please.

-Terminatah

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Terminatah
This doesn't exactly make him James Cameron.

Box office receipts do not a good movie make.

Please.

-Terminatah

I would go on, but I guess that you just don't see my point that just because a director has a certain film that's one way DOESN'T mean every following film will be the same way. Sure, a lot of hot, modern directors have "signatures" and such, but there are directors who modify with each project they do. Our beloved Richard Donner is a prime example...

James Harvey

02-17-2002, 04:01 PM

First off, I want everyone to calm down here. This thread is close to erupting into a flame thread and I will close it if I have to. Everyone...just chill. Take a breathe before you post your next thread.

Anyways, for me, my only problem with this next possible Superman film is the "lighter, funnier" feel it'll supposedly have. I'm not a big fan of that. Make it in the tone of S:TAS, and I'll be a happy camper!

The Game

02-17-2002, 04:18 PM

I have to say I agree with Cosmocat. You all seem to have your mind set that this movie will be horrid because McG is directing, but really, has anyone given him a chance?

I agree with Cosmocat- Charlie's Angles had to be kind of campy and music-videoish, or it would have come off as ridiculous. For what it's supposed to be it's not that bad- who knows, if the script is good he might just make a decent Superman movie.

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by thegame8866
I have to say I agree with Cosmocat. You all seem to have your mind set that this movie will be horrid because McG is directing, but really, has anyone given him a chance?

I agree with Cosmocat- Charlie's Angles had to be kind of campy and music-videoish, or it would have come off as ridiculous. For what it's supposed to be it's not that bad- who knows, if the script is good he might just make a decent Superman movie.

Thank you. That's really the point I'm trying to make. ONE movie doesn't illustrate every creative choice McG will make in the rest of his career. And with Charlie's Angels, McG just did what he knew would work. Like it or not, the way McG did the movie was the only way it would work.

And I, too, feel that people on here are being unfair to McG. I wonder how they'd feel if they were in McG's shoes...?

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
First off, I want everyone to calm down here. This thread is close to erupting into a flame thread and I will close it if I have to. Everyone...just chill. Take a breathe before you post your next thread.

Anyways, for me, my only problem with this next possible Superman film is the "lighter, funnier" feel it'll supposedly have. I'm not a big fan of that. Make it in the tone of S:TAS, and I'll be a happy camper!

Sorry, Jim. I'm not trying to flame anyone, I'm just trying to point out alternatives and let people breathe a little easier by saying that McG doing Superman is not something to worry about, and illustrating why. That's all.

As for the "lighter, funnier" thing, that doesn't bother me that much, because like I said before, Superman was never really "heavy". There's room for stuff like that. There's nothing wrong with a fun Superman adventure.

James Harvey

02-17-2002, 05:37 PM

True, Superman is really an adventure more than anything, but I just can't see this fim working (a la "Charlie's Angels" for example). I think STAS did a great job as balancing humor and action (see the 1st Mxy episode) and that should be something they consider. But I'd like to see the tone of the movie be like their initial season.

Terminatah

02-17-2002, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

Thank you. That's really the point I'm trying to make. ONE movie doesn't illustrate every creative choice McG will make in the rest of his career. And with Charlie's Angels, McG just did what he knew would work. Like it or not, the way McG did the movie was the only way it would work.

And I, too, feel that people on here are being unfair to McG. I wonder how they'd feel if they were in McG's shoes...? Charlie's Angels did not work. He did it the only way it would work? It didn't work. Maybe if it had worked, it would've worked, but it so did NOT work. Like it or not, the man is inexperienced and handing him such an important franchise (I say important because of all the fans who would be dissappointed if he failed) is too risky, especially when you consider not only that Charlie's Angels did not work, but also that it didn't work.

-Terminatah

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
True, Superman is really an adventure more than anything, but I just can't see this fim working (a la "Charlie's Angels" for example). I think STAS did a great job as balancing humor and action (see the 1st Mxy episode) and that should be something they consider. But I'd like to see the tone of the movie be like their initial season.

Well, see, I think this is part of the problem -- most people are thinking that with the "lighter and funnier" thing, they think it'll end up in the same mold as Charlie's Angels. It won't. Superman won't even have the same writer, so there's no way that'll happen. "Lighter and Funnier" and "Charlie's Angels" are not mutually exclusive.

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Terminatah
Charlie's Angels did not work. He did it the only way it would work? It didn't work. Maybe if it had worked, it would've worked, but it so did NOT work. Like it or not, the man is inexperienced and handing him such an important franchise (I say important because of all the fans who would be dissappointed if he failed) is too risky, especially when you consider not only that Charlie's Angels did not work, but also that it didn't work.

-Terminatah

Well, we are at an impasse. I say it worked for what it was, you say it didn't. The only thing I can say is that if you feel Charlie's Angels didn't work the way it was done, then I'm afraid Charlie's Angels would never have worked for you in any form.

James Harvey

02-17-2002, 06:13 PM

Alright, alright, let's drop it there. Terminath does not like Charlie's Angels or McG. Fine. Cosmocat likes McG and Charlie's Agnel. Fine. People are allowed to have different opinions, but this is getting ridiculous. It's just becoming a back and forth discussion between you two. Can we stop this? Please?

Let's just focus on the topic - which is the Superman movie finally has a director.

The Game

02-17-2002, 07:50 PM

I just got a phone call from McG and he told me he doesn't know what he's doing and he sucks and he has a stupid name. Looks like I win the thread!

-Terminatah

Actually it looks like you're very immature and you feel a strange need to get the last word in. JH just ended the argument, so why carry on?

Back on topic, I'm looking forward to the next Superman movie- I just want to see what it's like. I can't gaurentee it will be any good, personally I didn't love Charlie's Angles (although I still think it wasn't horrible for what it is supposed to be). We won't know what it will be like until trailer time, but I think it might be good. :)

Cosmocat

02-17-2002, 08:36 PM

The thing I'm wondering is what approach they'll take. Will they retell the origin again, or will they start with Superman already established and working on Earth?

The most exciting thing, to me, is in this day an age of advanced visual effects and technical prowess, they can finally put Supes' SUPER villains on the screen. That's what I'm looking foward to the most.

The Game

02-17-2002, 11:08 PM

Dude, shut up, it was a joke. See the Wakko face? Talk about carrying on the argument.

Sorry, I was confused, I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.

Terminatah

02-17-2002, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by thegame8866

Sorry, I was confused, I thought jokes were supposed to be funny. Oh well, I guess it wasn't really that funny if you didn't so. By the way, happy 15th birthday. Now off to bed with you.

Maybe a short retelling of the origin at the beginning would be in order, but it's a story many people have already seen. So perhaps they'll want to get right into the thick of the plot on this one. I only hope they don't pack in too many characters (Daily Planet staff, multiple villains) because that would cut into the character development that this film will definitely need if Warner Brothers expects audiences to love the characters and root for sequels. That's why when it comes to the cast in action movies, less really is more.

-Terminatah

The Game

02-18-2002, 12:03 AM

Oh well, I guess it wasn't really that funny if you didn't so. By the way, happy 15th birthday. Now off to bed with you.

I don't know if I should say thank you or flip you the bird. I suppose I'll do neither. (You're pretty sneaky there, finding out my birthday). Yes, the big 1-5. You're ninteen, right? I suppose the fact that you're four years older than I am gives you the right to act like you are my superior. By the way, if you couldn't sense the sarcasm in the previous statment, print this out and read it: KCUS UOY.

Now, back to Superman... Does anyone know (if it happens at all) what the script will be about? Obviously they're not going with Kevin Smith's Superman Lives, so does anyone know what it will be? Another sequel, or a revamp, or what?

Cosmocat

02-18-2002, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by thegame8866

I don't know if I should say thank you or flip you the bird. I suppose I'll do neither. (You're pretty sneaky there, finding out my birthday). Yes, the big 1-5. You're ninteen, right? I suppose the fact that you're four years older than I am gives you the right to act like you are my superior. By the way, if you couldn't sense the sarcasm in the previous statment, print this out and read it: KCUS UOY.

Now, back to Superman... Does anyone know (if it happens at all) what the script will be about? Obviously they're not going with Kevin Smith's Superman Lives, so does anyone know what it will be? Another sequel, or a revamp, or what?

I'm thinking they'll start over. I think it's too early to say just what the script will be about, but since it's been more than 10 years since the last Supes film, it's probably the best thing to just start over. That's why I was wondering if they'll retell the origin or just start with Supes established.

Terminatah

02-18-2002, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

I'm thinking they'll start over. I think it's too early to say just what the script will be about, but since it's been more than 10 years since the last Supes film, it's probably the best thing to just start over. That's why I was wondering if they'll retell the origin or just start with Supes established. I agree. When you think about it, referring to this project as Superman 5 is pretty silly, considering it falls more into remake territory.

Now, when they say McG has creative freedom with this movie, is that before or after Jon Peters makes his WONDERFUL suggestions? I read that history of the Superman movie, and it seems where most people would add their two cents, Peters is giving us Indian currency.

-Terminatah

The Game

02-18-2002, 12:26 AM

I read that history of the Superman movie, and it seems where most people would add their two cents, Peters is giving us Indian currency.

lol. Who's this Jon Peters guy, and what influence does he have on the movie?

Terminatah

02-18-2002, 12:30 AM

Peters is the biggest foe Superman has ever faced. Here's the link Manhunter posted in the 2nd page of this thread. It tells the history of Superman 5 (http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/files/Forum30/HTML/007213.html).

You couldn't make this stuff up.

-Terminatah

The Game

02-18-2002, 12:46 AM

WHOA! After reading that I am more than thankful Burton isn't directing this! I mean- McG may end up sucking but some of the stuff that Burton wanted to do would be disasterous! :(

The Dark Knight

02-18-2002, 01:28 AM

I really feel sorry for Kevin Smith having to put up with all that. Superman's body gaurds? Does Jon Peters think or is he some sort of idiotic two year old that yells out whatever comes to his mind? Either way, he shouldn't be allowed near a movie set ever again.

Failure

02-18-2002, 01:55 AM

Geez, the truth is stranger than fiction! Burton and Peters are idiots, no wait that's kind of harsh. No wait, they are idiots! Those ideas would've made Batman & robin look good.

I'm starting to think that it doesn't matter who directs this movie as long as Peters is involved it's going to suck, real bad. I feel bad for Kevin Smith and Nick Cage. I didn't even want Nick Cage to play Superman, but I still feel bad for him, having to put up with the idiocy.

Palin Dromos

02-18-2002, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Terminatah
Peters is the biggest foe Superman has ever faced. Here's the link Manhunter posted in the 2nd page of this thread. It tells the history of Superman 5 (http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/files/Forum30/HTML/007213.html).

You couldn't make this stuff up.

-Terminatah

Wow! That whole thing was down right scary! (This coming from a guy who watches Se7en to cheer himself up)

It however only cements my belief that McG's Superman vision will also not see the light of day.

You know this is going to sound completely unoriginal, but just hear my out. I think the best choice for director would be (hear me out dang it) is Steven Spielberg.

I'm taking a course right now specifically about the Style of Steven Spielberg and setting aside the whole "movie-god" angle the Superman subject matter is right up his ally.

You got the alien thing (E.T, Close Encounters), the comic book adventure (Indiana Jones), Flying (there's flight in all but like 2 of his films), toss in the Jewish connection for good measure and the fact that he's one of the most powerful me in Hollywood and the Superman franchise might live again.

This of course is little more than a pipe dream seeing as how WB has the rights and following the Harry Potter fiasco I don't think these two parties see quite eye to eye.

It may never happen, but I can at least dream about it.

Terminatah

02-18-2002, 12:16 PM

I think Steven can squeeze it in in the year 2093. ;)

-Terminatah

The Game

02-18-2002, 02:15 PM

I think Steven can squeeze it in in the year 2093.

Yeah- he has like a million projects lined up for him... But that's not really a bad idea, I think Speilberg would create a great Superman. :)

Cosmocat

02-18-2002, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Palin Dromos

Wow! That whole thing was down right scary! (This coming from a guy who watches Se7en to cheer himself up)

It however only cements my belief that McG's Superman vision will also not see the light of day.

You know this is going to sound completely unoriginal, but just hear my out. I think the best choice for director would be (hear me out dang it) is Steven Spielberg.

I'm taking a course right now specifically about the Style of Steven Spielberg and setting aside the whole "movie-god" angle the Superman subject matter is right up his ally.

You got the alien thing (E.T, Close Encounters), the comic book adventure (Indiana Jones), Flying (there's flight in all but like 2 of his films), toss in the Jewish connection for good measure and the fact that he's one of the most powerful me in Hollywood and the Superman franchise might live again.

This of course is little more than a pipe dream seeing as how WB has the rights and following the Harry Potter fiasco I don't think these two parties see quite eye to eye.

It may never happen, but I can at least dream about it.

Interesting you say this. Steven Spielberg WAS approached to do the original Superman film, and he wanted to do it, but according to the Salkinds, he asked for "too much money". And knowing their legendary "cost cutting" methods, they were just probably too cheap to shell out the cash for Spielberg. He probably didn't ask for that much, really. Probably just as much as a normal A-list director. I think this is part of the reason they went with Richard Donner -- Donner was, at the time, relatively cheap and he had a good reputation.

I'd love to see Spielberg involved with Superman in some fashion, but I doubt that will happen. He's grown into doing his own projects without ties to pop culture. I do remember reading, though, that he's constantly inspired by Superman comics, so I GUESS that's something to be happy about... :)

Maxie Zeus

02-18-2002, 08:44 PM

1. Jon Peters: Famous Hollywood producer, former hairdresser. Reputedly the model for Warren Beatty's womanizing hairdresser character in Shampoo. Went into producing after becoming Barbra Streisand's boytoy, and with her produced the remake of A Star is Born. After some not too successful movies after that, he teamed up with Peter Guber to co-produce a string of successful films in the mid-eighties: The Witches of Eastwick, Gorillas in the Mist, Rainman, and topping it off in 1989 with Batman. After which he and Guber were hired by Sony to run their newly acquired Columbia Pictures subsidiary. Peters was eventually fired after pissing off too many Sony execs.

Peters is known for his plebiean taste in movies. Batman was apparently intended by Burton to be even darker (more in line with Batman Returns and Peters bullied and harassed him into making it lighter and more accessible. He has an irascible personality, and has apparently gotten into physically violent clashes with his associates on more than one occasion. He also has reputation for being . . . well, "stupid."

2. Richard Donner: Director with a long history antedating the 1978 Superman, including a stint directing the live action sequences of Hanna-Barbera's TV variety show The Banana Splits. He first achieved prominence with The Omen and on the basis of that got the nod for Superman. That job was apparently not quite as successful as his directorial credit would imply; the producers were very unhappy, and brought in Richard Lester (director of the Beatle's films, as well as The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers) to discreetly clean it up. Lester's contribution was so extensive that when the footage for the sequel was assembled (Superman II was shot concurrently with the first one) he received the screen credit.

Donner's problems apparently were with the Salkinds, not Warner Bros., which merely acted as the films' distributor. Donner's relations with WB were actually very warm in the 80s and 90s, and he did most of his work at that studio: Ladyhawke, The Goonies, Maverick, Assassins, Conspiracy Theory, and the four Lethal Weapon films. Except for his age (he will be 71 this year) there seems to be no professional impediment to his picking up the Superman franchise again.

Manhunter

02-19-2002, 09:43 PM

*in best Stone Cold Steve Austin voice*

If you think Jon Peters is, without a doubt, the biggest jackass in Hollywood, gimme a "HELL YEAH"!

Cosmocat

02-20-2002, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Manhunter
*in best Stone Cold Steve Austin voice*

If you think Jon Peters is, without a doubt, the biggest jackass in Hollywood, gimme a "HELL YEAH"!

hells yes

RorShaq

02-20-2002, 12:58 AM

I really don't get it. McG has directed 1 succesful movie. Donner has directed close to a dozen. His version of Superman is the perennial fan favorite, and he has repeatedly expressed interest in beng invovlved in the next screen adaptation. What is stopping Warner Bros. from giving him this project? I would really like to know.

Copernicus Dent

02-20-2002, 02:59 AM

"...interesting experiment and all, and it would make him darker..."

Why do we think that Burton planned to make Superman dark? I mean, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Mars Attacks, Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, none of those movies are dark in its visual tone. Well in a way Edward Scissorhands was, but only in Edward’s world.

I’d imagine that’s how Burton would translate Superman, but I guess we’ll never know for sure.

CadaverousEyes

02-20-2002, 01:05 PM

Go to the "history of Superman 5" link. We know.

Alexandra Wayne

02-20-2002, 01:32 PM

Charlie's Angels was a spoof...
It was purposely silly, campy, and cheesy; that was the point! I had to do a research paper on the film (yeah, I know....) but seriously, the movie is all about not taking itself seriously. It makes fun of itself constantly ("Not another remake of a tv series!") and doesn't take itself very seriously. Remember the sequence where the girls are chained together and, giggling, they pull to one side or another? That was directly from the original series, just cheesed-up a bit. The movie's about giggling, wearing tight clothes, using nifty gadgets, and driving sleek cars.
It's a joke. Batman and Robin was...well, to some extent, it was a joke, too.
But even if you don't get it, you have to appreciate what McG did as far as directing...it's visually appealing. So don't freak quite yet...Alias, as far as I know, is a fairly well-written show...maybe everything will be okay.