Man Of Steel (2013 Superman reboot directed by Zack Snyder)

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6478]

*adds Destruction of Krypton to On-The-Go playlist*

[John Crichton 4]

Save everyone lots of trouble (and this board from certain nuclear meltdown): don't make the damn thing at all.

Indeed.

[Quintus 5394]

I'm always amused by Alex's blind admiration for the thoroughly unproven Snyder, lol.

[crocodile 6862]

Whawowa! I've just heard that Snyder completely trashed Goyer's script and that Nolan is no longer producing it. Now that's my dog! (If it's true, of course. Now I gotta find something that backs it up)

Alex

Yeah, Nolan is off the picture. This has been confirmed. Not sure about the script.

I heard Superman and the special effects are still on board. Though the latter wouldn't officially comment on the matter. Oh, and slow mo is in-talks too. Proabably that's what bothered the script, which wasn't satisfied with its much smaller part in this production.

Karol

[Red 73]

Nolan was basically my only reason for being even a little hopeful for this. So, there goes that.

[Wycket 36]

From what I gathered from the comment on SuperHeroHype, Nolan has set everything in motion and its now in Synder's hands to succeed or fail. I don't think Nolan will be too hands on,hell, he's doing Dark Knight Rises next year, but I'm sure Nolan is still a producer and will take calls from Synder if he has any questions.

[Quintus 5394]

Maybe Nolan threw his toys out the pram when Snyder told him he didn't want the main theme to be an ultra contemporary two note 'pulse'.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Or maybe he just finally got around to watching 300.

[AC1 3805]

I'm always amused by Alex's blind admiration for the thoroughly unproven Snyder, lol.

I'm much more amused with the general JWfan who thinks film doesn't get better than Star Wars, Harry Potter, Back To The Future or The Mexican, lol (x2).

Anyway, earlier in this thread, I was puzzled with 3 things, namely, Zimmer, Nolan and Supes. Zimmer and Nolan are out now. It's only a matter of time before Snyder drops Supes too. Snyder is too artsy fartsy and weird for traditional, formulaic big audience movies.

Alex

[crocodile 6862]

I don't get it, this is old news. Nolan's role was to develop the script, hire the director and that's pretty much it.

Karol

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Snyder is too artsy fartsy and weird for traditional, formulaic big audience movies.

Alex

Then how do you explain the owl movie?

[AC1 3805]

I don't get it, this is old news. Nolan's role was to develop the script, hire the director and that's pretty much it.

Maybe that just isn't juicy enough for us to talk about?

Then how do you explain the owl movie?

I haven't seen that one because I'm waiting for the blu-ray. But sure, after two unusual artsy fartsy comic book films, why not take a break from the adult comic book movie and do an artsy fartsy animation flick for kiddies? Even David Lynch has been known to have strayed away from his comfort zone. But Supes, the most conservative, traditional American superhero of them all? Nah, that's nothing for my dog Snyder. Then they better get some anonymous yes man like the one who does them Iron Man flics.

[Quintus 5394]

I'm always amused by Alex's blind admiration for the thoroughly unproven Snyder, lol.

I'm much more amused with the general JWfan who thinks film doesn't get better than Star Wars, Harry Potter, Back To The Future or The Mexican, lol (x2).

Oh I dunno, I can tell you for a fact Snyder isn't really appreciated over on Empireonline message boards, either. I personally don't get all the evident hate to be honest, since I think he's nowhere near as bad as he's often made out to be. But he's no Ridley Scott, or Kubrick reborn... as you often seem to make him out to be. You do Alex, you do

Anyway back to the actual story and I personally would like to see this Superman languish is development hell, hopelessly nostalgic that I am. Snyder isn't who I'd have picked to direct, but I'd still prefer him to keep control of the project over Nolan - who's film making sensibilities shouldn't have been anywhere near a Superman movie in the first place.

[AC1 3805]

Yes, I think Snyder is the Kubrick of the comic book movie and I also compare him to the young Ridley Scott. There's a reason for that. Like Kubrick and the young Scott, Snyder is a visualist par excellence. Like writers use words to communicate, Snyder communicates entirely with visuals (mise-en-scène, motion, movement, images, actor's pose). I can't name many others directors who possess Snyder's visual power and expresiveness. I wasn't sure with 300, but when I saw Watchmen, I knew that he has a distinctive artistic voice. I can't say I'm intrigued with the plot outline of Sucker Punch but I already know that I'll be watching in awe at 'how' Snyder will bring it. Heck, he can film a guy sitting on the toilet and still it will be interesting to me. I've been watching movies for a very long time now and often I feel that I'm weary of cinema. With Snyder, I feel I'm waking up again. He might be boring to a lot of people but for me he's exactly the opposite of boring. So far, I've always been greatly entertained by his movies. Even his characters, who always seem to lack morality, amuse me.

Alex

[Quintus 5394]

Yes, I think Snyder is the Kubrick of the comic book movie and I also compare him to the young Ridley Scott. There's a reason for that. Like Kubrick and the young Scott, Snyder is a visualist par excellence. Like writers use words to communicate, Snyder communicates entirely with visuals (mise-en-scène, motion, movements, images, actor's pose).

Indeed, but perhaps to others - those who enjoy and appreciate movies for far more than just their imagery; might Snyder's photo-centric style lack depth? Might his films not reasonably be perceived as being shallow?

One of the biggest contradictions of film is that much of the emotion and audience connection lies behind the pretty pictures, indeed some might say substance is what makes a movie stick; the style is secondary.

Of course, someone like Kubrick managed to weave the two together at his leisure, often spectacularly so, show off that he was.

Snyder might have the eye, but he's yet to prove has the vision.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Yes, I think Snyder is the Kubrick of the comic book movie and I also compare him to the young Ridley Scott. There's a reason for that. Like Kubrick and the young Scott, Snyder is a visualist par excellence. Like writers use words to communicate, Snyder communicates entirely with visuals (mise-en-scène, motion, movements, images, actor's pose).

Indeed, but perhaps to others - those who enjoy and appreciate movies for far more than just their imagery; might Snyder's photo-centric style lack depth? Might his films not reasonably be perceived as being shallow?

One of the biggest contradictions of film is that much of the emotion and audience connection lies behind the pretty pictures, indeed some might say substance is what makes a movie stick; the style is secondary.

Of course, someone like Kubrick managed to weave the two together at his leisure, often spectacularly so, show off that he was.

Snyder might have the eye, but he's yet to prove has the vision.

I agree 100%, in fact I'll go further. I agree he's a visual artist, but not a great one. I think he works so hard on the impact of the images that many of them lose the substance they might have conveyed, at least in 300, although I'll concede much of that is down to Frank Miller.

I think he has potential, but the substance in the images lacks the intelligence of Kubrick and Scott, and I find little in them and behind them to interest me.

[Wojo 2445]

Since Snyder's directing the new Superman, I hope the titular character wears more than a red Spartan codpiece with an "S" tattooed on his Kryptonian chest, though my gf will probably disagree with me. The wardrobe of 300 was her favorite part of the film.

[crocodile 6862]

Like this?

Karol

[Quintus 5394]

God that's awful.

[AC1 3805]

Indeed, but perhaps to others - those who enjoy and appreciate movies for far more than just their imagery

Like what? What is more important to a film than visuals, the language of film?

Snyder makes cinema where the movie (moving images) itself is placed in the center and where the film is the star, not the story, the characters or the actors. Not that I feel that he neglects his characters. On the contrary, like I said, Snyder's characters maintain my intrest throughout the entire length of the movie but they are there to serve the film itself. For those who think movies should be about characters and story, cool, go watch character-driven movies, go watch a stage play, read a book, watch a soap on TV, watch HBO! I believe film should distinguish itself from soaps and stage plays. I like it when cinema becomes the media of the visual artist, where I'm wowed by sheer vision, when it does something you can only see in a movie. Those movies are extremely rare and so I cherish them. One of the reasons why many critics in 1982 didn't like Blade Runner was because Scott was more concerned about the visuals than he was about the story or the characters. Honestly, I loved it when Ridley Scott made visually-driven movies like The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner. Too bad he doesn't do it anymore. Luckily, I have Zack Snyder for fulfilling my needs now.

might Snyder's photo-centric style lack depth? Might his films not reasonably be perceived as being shallow?

It's hard for me to deem an outlandishly expressive visual language as "shallow". Again, this comment reminds me of the critics who said that Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick were guilty of making sterile movies and putting style over substance. Their movies are only cold and sterile when you look at them from a wrong perspective.

One of the biggest contradictions of film is that much of the emotion and audience connection lies behind the pretty pictures, indeed some might say substance is what makes a movie stick; the style is secondary.

It's not pretty pictures but expressive images. And yes, I'm starting to think that style comes first. Style is vision. And you connect to the vision or you don't. In my opinion, the movies Ridley Scott became worse the moment he toned down or payed less attention to 'style'. The thing that makes a painter different is his style, his vision, not so much the subject. With other words, I've seen most things, but I've never seen it the way Snyder does it.

Snyder might have the eye, but he's yet to prove has the vision.

Not for me, obviously.

Alex

[Quintus 5394]

Indeed, but perhaps to others - those who enjoy and appreciate movies for far more than just their imagery

Like what? What is more important to a film than visuals, the language of film?

Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to reply to this (I'm on iPod in work, no time to type hefty posts), cheers.

Ooo Alex, you are obtuse

No one could ever accuse you of having a lack devotion, though.

[AC1 3805]

Ah, I was waiting for the insults to come. By the way, it was an rhetorical question as my opinion on film should be clear by now. (Heck, all my Zack Snyder posts are about how I perceive film).

Alex

[JoeinAR 1851]

looking at Zack Snyders films, Dawn of the Dead, a mentally challeged version of the original. Visually uninteresting, and a pale comparison to the great original.

300, nice palette, good for one viewing.

Watchmen, what a fucking mess of a movie, complete waste of time.

The Owl movie, another pretty palette, boring as all hell.

Superman the reboot. I AM KAL-EL.

[Quintus 5394]

Ah, I was waiting for the insults to come.

Insults?! Where? Please Alex, don't be so defensive. Just because you're passionate doesn't mean you need to be touchy with it. It takes the shine of the banter.

Merry Christmas you sensitive fool

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Indeed, but perhaps to others - those who enjoy and appreciate movies for far more than just their imagery

Like what? What is more important to a film than visuals, the language of film?

Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to reply to this (I'm on iPod in work, no time to type hefty posts), cheers.

Ooo Alex, you are obtuse

No one could ever accuse you of having a lack devotion, though.

Now now, Quint. Alex might like to sound radical in his statements, but he's not wrong here. The only thing a film can offer without stealing from other pre-existing arts are moving images. Masterful visuals are deep down what movies are all about.

Just don't mistake "masterful" for "pretty" or "stunning".

[Quintus 5394]

Not really. One mustn't overlook the fact that film is as subjective as any other artform. Art by it's very nature isn't necessarily a visual thing; to suggest otherwise is both blinkered and ridiculous.

I have no doubt that to you and Alex (and myself, to a point) believe imagery (aesthetic, framing, light) is the most important element of film, but it isn't the ONLY element to take into account when deeming the emotional effect and appeal of a given film. That's because these things are eternally subjective.

What Alex finds attractive isn't what everybody else ought to, too. Strong or "masterful" imagery oozes depth and apparently folk here strongly disagree with him that Snyder is god's gift to cinema in that regard. That's all this boils down too.

Alex might like to sound radical in his statements,

Oh he does lol, bless him.

Oh and knock off the patronising tone yourself, cheers

The only thing a film can offer without stealing from other pre-existing arts are moving images.

This statement is just flat out wrong. Perhaps it's the natural view of all visualists? In which case it's an understandable outlook, but wrong all the same. Words like "stealing" are of very poor choice indeed.

But anywaaaaay, this is veering away from the original discussion, which concerned the belief that cinematic images are nothing (even pretty ones) without substance, and that some folk reckon Snyder hasn't got what it takes, even going so far as to suggest his imagery is actually a bit rubbish. That is all.

Forgive me if I seem to be repeating myself, it's an unfortunate side effect of typing via a mobile device.

[Koray Savas 2188]

All I get from Alex's posts is that Zack Snyder is god.

[JoeinAR 1851]

well Alex is wrong, zack is nothing special as a director.

[Wojo 2445]

All I get from Alex's posts is that Zack Snyder is god.

For a director to be God, they should get less than a day to make a classic epic movie right out the gate.

Is that too much to ask? We're not asking to create a universe in a week here.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Henry Cavill is Superman

[AC1 3805]

Henry Cavill is Superman

Hey, I know him from The Tudors!

[artyjeffrey 20]

Well, Snyder has at least selected his new Superman. Somewhere, Brandon Routh is crying into his pillow. "Blast you, Singer!"

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6478]

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

[Naïve Old Fart 7517]

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

No. I've heard that it will be a high-spirited affair, with a script from the late Tom Mankiewicz, edited for maximum effect, by Stuart Baird, shot (in Panavision, of course!) all soft-focus-'n-all, by Dean Cundey, and exec-produced by Richard Donner.

If only

[A Farewell to Kings 3557]

we all know whats going to happen, Chuck Norris is going to play superman....

lol

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6478]

Do you think Superman will fly faster than a speeding bullet...in slow motion?

[Quintus 5394]

No one else sad to see Brandon Routh go? I feel a bit sorry for the guy.

[lonzoe 18]

Well, Snyder has at least selected his new Superman. Somewhere, Brandon Routh is crying into his pillow. "Blast you, Singer!"

Oh stop with the Singer and Routh bashing. Already. After a while gets very old.

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

No. I've heard that it will be a high-spirited affair, with a script from the late Tom Mankiewicz, edited for maximum effect, by Stuart Baird, shot (in Panavision, of course!) all soft-focus-'n-all, by Dean Cundey, and exec-produced by Richard Donner.

If only

You know Superman existed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before 1978. And that Superman still continues to exist after 1978. So get over it already that Donner and co. aren't working on this reboot. He didn't direct SR or was involved in Lois & Clark: TNAOS, STAS,and Smallville. And he's not involved in the reboot either. So get over it already. The man and his team hasn't worked on Superman since the original film came out. They already moved on. You should too. No offense.

[John Crichton 4]

No one else sad to see Brandon Routh go? I feel a bit sorry for the guy.

No, I'm with you too. I thought he did a fine job.

[Koray Savas 2188]

Calm down. I don't think any of us care about this film whatsoever (except Alex, of course).

[JoeinAR 1851]

Well, Snyder has at least selected his new Superman. Somewhere, Brandon Routh is crying into his pillow. "Blast you, Singer!"

Oh stop with the Singer and Routh bashing. Already. After a while gets very old.

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

No. I've heard that it will be a high-spirited affair, with a script from the late Tom Mankiewicz, edited for maximum effect, by Stuart Baird, shot (in Panavision, of course!) all soft-focus-'n-all, by Dean Cundey, and exec-produced by Richard Donner.

If only

You know Superman existed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before 1978. And that Superman still continues to exist after 1978. So get over it already that Donner and co. aren't working on this reboot. He didn't direct SR or was involved in Lois & Clark: TNAOS, STAS,and Smallville. And he's not involved in the reboot either. So get over it already. The man and his team hasn't worked on Superman since the original film came out. They already moved on. You should too. No offense.

big strong words for a newbie, but the point is valid, this isn't the 78 version, Snyder hasn't made any film as good, but we can hope he succeeds.

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

Do we need that in a Superman movie, no?

[AC1 3805]

Are we taking bets whether this will be a darker, serious Nolan-y interpretation?

May I remind you that it's not a Nolan film?

[Brónach 492]

Snyder will go all Snyder over it. He likes retro stuff. He likes superheroes and dreamy settings. It will be a less violent Watchmen, with a way less imaginative story.

Which, strangely, kind of fits the source material. Given a script that's actually good and more cinematic, shot in Snyder's style, it could be cool. In the two films I've seen from him the source of problems was always he source material.

[crocodile 6862]

Let's not forget it's Goyer's script. It should be faithful to comic book, at least to some depictions of the character. But I'd say bye bye to Donner's Superman. Which is a good thing, actually.

Karol

[Brónach 492]

About Donner's, I've always liked that it was mostly good and all, but it was never my Superman. Hard to explain for me.

We need two things: to get deeply into Superman's head, and some action that lives up to the character's potential.

I've heard some people say the character is boring and too perfect and all... what?!

[crocodile 6862]

Well, I love Donner's version, but at the same time I understand what you mean. I think it has to do with the fact the character was reinvented so many times many different fans associate the character with different eras. My Superman would be John Byrne's and Reger Stern's versions. The Eradicator & Exile storylines were always dear to my heart. And it is a bit darker take on Superman. But that's how I got introduced to the character.

Oh, one more thing. I don't mind Cavill taking the role.

Karol

[Wojo 2445]

Well, Nolan's two three Batman reboots cast an Englishman as the American superhero icon. Why not do the same for Superman, I guess.

Maybe the new filmmakers are trying to portray the idea of Superman as the ultimate immigrant. A man from another planet who assumes the appearance of a normal citizen even after gaining great powers on Earth, and can only be hurt by a small legacy from his homeworld.

[Delorean90 34]

Or it could be that he was just the right man for the job.

[Quintus 5394]

Heh heh, they just did the celeb news on the radio and the Superman casting announcement came up. So which music was playing in the background? Yep, you guessed right.

You can take the Superman out of John Williams, but you can't take the John Williams out of Superman.

[Ollie 860]

Anytime Superman is referenced here in the US, Williams' music usually accompanies it.

So good luck to whomever gets the daunting task of composing the music. Although something tells me Nolan and Snyder won't care.