|
That's right, the director of 300 and The Watchmen is going to direct the next Superman reboot. Details.
|
Warners couldn't have picked a better director to stay true to the story of Superman and one that will bring an exciting visual tone to the film. Cannot wait to see this!
HoustonDerek just doesn't understand how film making works or he would not call Snyder a hack.
Aronofsky, makes bad movies. The Fountain is terrible. Requiem for a Dream is the most overrated film of the last decade. Pi is just odd. Only two of his films (The Wrestler and Black Swan) are any good and that's because of his actors.
Snyder's style is perfect for comics and also, unlike Aronofsky, has consistently come in under budget and on time-just like Nolan's films. Nolan, who is the executive producer, wants a filmmaker who has a proven successful (unlike Aronofsky) track record, and someone who will not go over budget and over schedule (like Aronofsky did with The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream).
|
Warners couldn't have picked a better director to stay true to the story of Superman and one that will bring an exciting visual tone to the film. Cannot wait to see this!
HoustonDerek just doesn't understand how film making works or he would not call Snyder a hack.
Aronofsky, makes bad movies. The Fountain is terrible. Requiem for a Dream is the most overrated film of the last decade. Pi is just odd. Only two of his films (The Wrestler and Black Swan) are any good and that's because of his actors.
Snyder's style is perfect for comics and also, unlike Aronofsky, has consistently come in under budget and on time-just like Nolan's films. Nolan, who is the executive producer, wants a filmmaker who has a proven successful (unlike Aronofsky) track record, and someone who will not go over budget and over schedule (like Aronofsky did with The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream).
Let's see: I was a film major, I think I have a clue about making movies.
300 sucked. Watchmen sucked. Maybe his new cartoon is decent, but I won't see it until it's on HBO or something, so who knows.
Pi and Requiem of a Dream sucked? The Wrestler sucked? Don't like being challenged at the movies I guess. Ah, cheap theatrics and special effects over substance. Gotcha.
Sorry, mindless pap does little for me.
|
|
Just because you were a film major doesn't mean you learned anything. You make films yet or critique them for a newspaper (your web blog don't count)? Since the answer is an obvious NO, that does not help your argument that you "have a clue about making movies".
If you read closer you would see I site the wrestler as a decent film. I didn't say Snyder was a genius by any means, but he is a far superior choice to direct a superman movie than Aronofsky is.
Your argument that I prefer cheap theatrics and special effects, while meant as a jibe, doesn't help your argument either because thats what a superman movie would be about.
Saying I don't like to be challenged on films is an ignorant statement. I am obviously challenging you.
Unlike your post, I brought up reasons why Snyder is a better choice and all you write is "300 sucked. Watchmen sucked." okay, tell me why they suck. I also was a film major and guess what! that's what they tell you in that class too!
Because movies are a business, despite how artsy some fanboys think they should be, they are out to make money. lets look at a very important, indisputable fact:
PI Worldwide box office $3,221,152
Requiem for a Dream Worldwide Box office: $7,390,108
(FLOP)Budget:N/A(common when a film flops)
The Fountain Worldwide Box office: $15,978,422 (FLOP)Budget:35 million (that's a SUPER FLOP)
The Wrestler Worldwide box office: $26,238,243 Budget:6 million (finally, after 4 films in 8 years he makes one that is moderately successful due to it low budget)
Black Swan (no totals yet)
Total box office: $52,827,925
Minus Film Budget: $41,000,000 (Remember no budget for Requiem or PI)
Film profit: $11,827,925
Total films:5. flops:3
So he is over all profitable unless you account for the missing budgets of PI and Requiem.
Dawn of the Dead Worldwide box office: $102,356,381 Budget:26 million
300 Worldwide box office: $456,068,181 Budget:65 million
Watchmen Worldwide box office: $185,258,983 Budget:130 million
Legend of the Guardians Worldwide box office: $41,853,408(in release) Budget:80 million
Total box office: $785,536,953
Total Film Budget: $301,000,000
Total profit: $484,536,953
So. Go with the director who in 10 years made you (maybe) 12 million dollars or go with the guy who in 6 years made you (almost)485 million?
hmmm. Seems the entire world thinks Snyder makes better movies, cause they actually watch them.
Warners couldn't have picked a better director to stay true to the story of Superman and one that will bring an exciting visual tone to the film. Cannot wait to see this!
HoustonDerek just doesn't understand how film making works or he would not call Snyder a hack.
Aronofsky, makes bad movies. The Fountain is terrible. Requiem for a Dream is the most overrated film of the last decade. Pi is just odd. Only two of his films (The Wrestler and Black Swan) are any good and that's because of his actors.
Snyder's style is perfect for comics and also, unlike Aronofsky, has consistently come in under budget and on time-just like Nolan's films. Nolan, who is the executive producer, wants a filmmaker who has a proven successful (unlike Aronofsky) track record, and someone who will not go over budget and over schedule (like Aronofsky did with The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream).
Let's see: I was a film major, I think I have a clue about making movies.
300 sucked. Watchmen sucked. Maybe his new cartoon is decent, but I won't see it until it's on HBO or something, so who knows.
Pi and Requiem of a Dream sucked? The Wrestler sucked? Don't like being challenged at the movies I guess. Ah, cheap theatrics and special effects over substance. Gotcha.
Sorry, mindless pap does little for me.
Not a film major just an average Joe but 300 rocked and Watchman was good.
I think the point of Warner Bros choosing Snyder is exactly for thoose reasons, his movies appeal to the average Joe. They're not trying to make a classic or great art they're just trying to appeal to the majority of teenagers so they can make a buck.|
|
Because movies are a business, despite how artsy some fanboys think they should be, they are out to make money. lets look at a very important, indisputable fact:PI Worldwide box office $3,221,152
Requiem for a Dream Worldwide Box office: $7,390,108
(FLOP)Budget:N/A(common when a film flops)
The Fountain Worldwide Box office: $15,978,422 (FLOP)Budget:35 million (that's a SUPER FLOP)
The Wrestler Worldwide box office: $26,238,243 Budget:6 million (finally, after 4 films in 8 years he makes one that is moderately successful due to it low budget)
Black Swan (no totals yet)
Total box office: $52,827,925
Minus Film Budget: $41,000,000 (Remember no budget for Requiem or PI)
Film profit: $11,827,925
Total films:5. flops:3
So he is over all profitable unless you account for the missing budgets of PI and Requiem.
Pi's budget was $60,000, so it made a lot of money by comparison.
Requiem for a Dream's Budget was 4.5 Million, so it made money. It was only shown on average on about 50 screens per week, so it never had an opportunity to make more (being an indie film and all).The only film of Aronofsky's that is a definitive flop was "The Fountain", but I still think it was a pretty great movie. I own it on DVD and it hit me on a particularly strong nerve when I saw it as my mother had recently passed away and a lot of the movies observations regarding grief connected with me.
Of the directors that had been on the short list for Superman, I definitely agree that Aronofsky was a black horse on the list; while he has the desire, he doesn't have the aesthetics that would make for a good mainstream comic book movie. Snyder was a bit too obvious...all of his movies are very stylistically comic bookish, almost distractingly so. I also don't think he's a very good "actors" director...he can get the actor's framed in the camera just fine, but he doesn't get very good performances out of them. I'm hoping that with a good script and Nolan looking over his shoulder, he'll grow a bit and spend less time in the editing booth and more time with the actors.
A whole load of 'meh'.
Snyder was a bit too obvious...all of his movies are very stylistically comic bookish, almost distractingly so. I also don't think he's a very good "actors" director...he can get the actor's framed in the camera just fine, but he doesn't get very good performances out of them. I'm hoping that...
A lot off course will depend on who plays the Man of Steel..please please don't use Brandon Routh again..he's a bigger block of wood than Hayden Christiansen
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Snyder was a bit too obvious...all of his movies are very stylistically comic bookish, almost distractingly so. I also don't think he's a very good "actors" director...he can get the actor's framed in the camera just fine, but he doesn't get very good performances out of them. I'm hoping that...A lot off course will depend on who plays the Man of Steel..please please don't use Brandon Routh again..he's a bigger block of wood than Hayden Christiansen
I'm available...
Snyder was a bit too obvious...all of his movies are very stylistically comic bookish, almost distractingly so. I also don't think he's a very good "actors" director...he can get the actor's framed in the camera just fine, but he doesn't get very good performances out of them. I'm hoping that...A lot off course will depend on who plays the Man of Steel..please please don't use Brandon Routh again..he's a bigger block of wood than Hayden Christiansen
They should get Tom Welling, he's going to out of work soon and knows the character realy well.
Actually I'd be in favour of that...he's been Clark for 10 years why not give him the movie.
|
|
Actually I'd be in favour of that...he's been Clark for 10 years why not give him the movie.
I'm not anti-Tom, but I really disliked what Smallville did to the mythos for Superman, and the DC comics universe in general. If you have Welling as Superman, one of two things will happen:
Fans of Smallville will be disappointed/angry/frustrated if the Smallville canon is ignored for something closer to the regular DC Universe.
Fans of the regular DC Universe will be disappointed/angry/frustrated if the Smallville canon is used for the movie.
If a different actor is used for Supes, at least the expectation/fear that is a continuation of Smallville is dissipated and the public won't have any expectation either way.
I rather enjoyed Watchmen. 300 was meh.
Overall I mixed on this choice, but I'm very glad to see the project moving forward.
They should get Tom Welling, he's going to out of work soon and knows the character realy well.
Hmmm...call me crazy, but what about this guy?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Yes, having a good director and a good actor will help the movie, but unless they actually have a villain that can be a real threat to Superman, I'll pass. Another Superman movie with him shredding the non-threats he encounters and then dealing with Lex holding some Kryptonite would be just awful.
No Lex would be great.
Interesting debate..
I think I agree with the point that Synders movies made money but left a lot to be desired.
They had slick visuals and good looking actors..for the average joe they worked, just like a Big Mac meal combo works when you are hungry.
But to me, especially for the Watchman, I felt the movies came off flat.
On the other hand, I hated the last Superman recon so much I don't see how Synder can do worse.
|
WHY do we need another Superman reboot?
Is the ANYBODY out there that has no clue at all about who Superman is? If so, what on earth makes anyone thing that one person will even go to the Superman reboot movie?
I hear there is a new Spiderman reboot in the works... really? seriously? do we NOT know how Spiderman got his powers?
WHY do we need all these origins movies?
IF we have to have it, just make it a few minutes, part way through the movie, and get on with a new story.
Honestly, been there, done it, seen it. Don't waste my time and money on yet another retelling of the same thing yet again.
|
|
By the way, for the debate on good movies vs bad movies
I go to movies to ESCAPE real life.
I want to be ENTERTAINED by movies.
Movies like Meaning of Happyness are cute, and inspiring, but not entertaining. Great for a TV docu-drama, or direct to DVD. Not a big fan for the big screen.
Does this mean I am shallow? Nope. I do think critics who bash exciting fun movies in favor of movies that are boring but "inspiring and challenging" are usually self serving, egotistical, snobs.
THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE ON THESE BOARDS AT ALL! Do NOT think I am referring to anyone above! Just an opinion in GENERAL of movie critics.
|
|
By the way, for the debate on good movies vs bad movies
I go to movies to ESCAPE real life.
I want to be ENTERTAINED by movies.
Movies like Meaning of Happyness are cute, and inspiring, but not entertaining. Great for a TV docu-drama, or direct to DVD. Not a big fan for the big screen.
Does this mean I am shallow? Nope. I do think critics who bash exciting fun movies in favor of movies that are boring but "inspiring and challenging" are usually self serving, egotistical, snobs.
THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE ON THESE BOARDS AT ALL! Do NOT think I am referring to anyone above! Just an opinion in GENERAL of movie critics.
I don't have a problem with fun movies. However, even within the range of fun movies, there are good and bad ones and they can be measured on a lot of the same standards as the "boring" ones...whether it's bad acting, direction, script, etc. I'm not going to excuse a bad fun movie, just because its supposed to be fluff, because there are people who can make good ones that are more worth my money to see.
You know, that's like saying Budweiser makes better beer than Anchorsteam. I'm not going to start drinking Anheuser Busch swill because it outsells good beer...
I could go on and on. I suppose the Transformer movies are even better than Snyder's movies...
+1,000
I usually stay out off arguments like these(Technically you are both right/wrong; all about subjective-ness and blah blah)But you can't dismiss Aronofsky like that on my watch...
You will embrace true art or I'll go Leonidas on your arse people!!
Interesting debate..
I think I agree with the point that Synders movies made money but left a lot to be desired.
They had slick visuals and good looking actors..for the average joe they worked, just like a Big Mac meal combo works when you are hungry.
But to me, especially for the Watchman, I felt the movies came off flat.
On the other hand, I hated the last Superman recon so much I don't see how Synder can do worse.
+1,000
I thought the film wanted to be so close to the original flavor of the comic book and visual that it ended up being uninspired and even failed at being original*(plus it exceeded the amounts of violence even the novel had.It may be hard for some people to understand but I don't like violence for the sake of it)* It's hard to pinpoint exactly...In the end of the day its what Gilliam said: that maybe a series would be better suited for this project.
You know, that's like saying Budweiser makes better beer than Anchorsteam. I'm not going to start drinking Anheuser Busch swill because it outsells good beer...
I could go on and on. I suppose the Transformer movies are even better than Snyder's movies...
+1,000
I usually stay out off arguments like these(Technically you are both right/wrong; all about subjective-ness and blah blah)
But you can't dismiss Aronofsky like that on my watch...
You will embrace true art or I'll go Leonidas on your arse people!!
That doesn't mean I agree that a film major knows about art more than anyone else...Art after its released to the world doesn't even belong to the person who created it.I don't care what Arthur C Clarke says when he analyzes 2001...its my own interpretation that matters to me..and yours etc
Because movies are a business, despite how artsy some fanboys think they should be, they are out to make money. lets look at a very important, indisputable fact:PI Worldwide box office $3,221,152
Requiem for a Dream Worldwide Box office: $7,390,108
(FLOP)Budget:N/A(common when a film flops)
The Fountain Worldwide Box office: $15,978,422 (FLOP)Budget:35 million (that's a SUPER FLOP)
The Wrestler Worldwide box office: $26,238,243 Budget:6 million (finally, after 4 films in 8 years he makes one that is moderately successful due to it low budget)
Black Swan (no totals yet)
Total box office: $52,827,925
Minus Film Budget: $41,000,000 (Remember no budget for Requiem or PI)
Film profit: $11,827,925
Total films:5. flops:3
So he is over all profitable unless you account for the missing budgets of PI and Requiem.
Pi's budget was $60,000, so it made a lot of money by comparison.
Requiem for a Dream's Budget was 4.5 Million, so it made money. It was only shown on average on about 50 screens per week, so it never had an opportunity to make more (being an indie film and all).The only film of Aronofsky's that is a definitive flop was "The Fountain", but I still think it was a pretty great movie. I own it on DVD and it hit me on a particularly strong nerve when I saw it as my mother had recently passed away and a lot of the movies observations regarding grief connected with me.
Of the directors that had been on the short list for Superman, I definitely agree that Aronofsky was a black horse on the list; while he has the desire, he doesn't have the aesthetics that would make for a good mainstream comic book movie. Snyder was a bit too obvious...all of his movies are very stylistically comic bookish, almost distractingly so. I also don't think he's a very good "actors" director...he can get the actor's framed in the camera just fine, but he doesn't get very good performances out of them. I'm hoping that...
+1 All valid points