I have a "feeling" he'll be closely guiding this project.

He's Warner's "Wonder Boy" right now and as much as I dislike the choice of director, they must have come to some sort of agreement as to vision or Nolan wouldn't have moved forward with Snyder.
[Reply]

I actually think Snyder was a fairly "safe" choice. Hes popular right now and a "name" with the Geek crowd.

Aronofsky would have been a really bold choice, but maybe they feared he wasnt commerical enough?
[Reply]

I think people who are denigrating Snyder fail to appreciate that the thing the past Superman movies have lacked is the comic book style that Snyder has built his career on. Aside from being excellent at directing action, Snyder has a real talent for over-the-top visual style that brings the comic book pages to life on the silver screen. This movie is going to be beautiful in both story design, and artistic concept with action that will give us a true appreciation for how badass the character is. I think people are over thinking this thing. It's going to be awesome.
[Reply]

I think the thing he has generally failed at is style over substance, which isn't what reboot fans want.

A lot of people are anticipating a sort of revitalization of the Superman franchise as has been done with Batman.

Lofty expectations, and I'm just not sure it can be done. Batman is only a man, so everything that happens within the universe is more realistic. Superman being an alien automatically makes the film more difficult to make "gritty" like the new Batman.
[Reply]

Totally disagree. Anyone who doubts Alan Rickman is a fool (with due respect to the fools who doubt Alan Rickman). And General Zod would be an older man in his 50s or 60s who also experiences the superhuman boost that Clark Kent gets from the weaker gravity of earth and the intensity of the yellow sun. His appearance in age would make little difference in his superior physical abilities.
[Reply]

I'd have to understand what you mean specifically. With 300 and Watchmen, he was making a movie based on materials that already existed, and his job was to capture the mood of these established pieces of work on the Silver Screen. He did this very well with both Watchmen and 300. I'm not sure what sort of "substance" you could be looking for out of these movies, because they were both faithful to the sourcework.

It's one thing not to like these movies for whatever reason you might not like them, but to say that Snyder didn't deliver any substance to them - I'm not sure what you could possibly be looking for that wasn't there. He was faithful to the art that was already established.

Outside of these two movies, we have Michael Jordan's Playground and Dawn of the Dead (I'm not counting Owl's because it's new and I haven't seen it yet to comment). Am I to understand that you were looking for more substance in Dawn of the Dead? I mean, it's a zombie movie.

Without you commenting specifically about the substance you think was lacking, I have to believe that you're just one of these types who finds enjoyment in being hyper-critical because it's cooler not to like something, than to like it and have to defend it.


This is exactly why Snyder is the right choice for this. With Batman, it wasn't visually stylized in the way that 300 or Watchmen were. It had it's own gritty style, but it was very connected to flesh and bone reality - as though this is something that could really happen. With Superman, the challenge is keeping the viewer's suspension of disbelief in tact, and this will be much easier to do if the viewer is lost in the art while following the movie.
[Reply]

Surely you realize that just because something works on paper in comic book form doesn't mean that it will translate well to film. And Watchmen was not completely faithful to the source. Even if it were, that doesn't mean that it would make a great film, panel for panel, shot for shot.

I have to believe you haven't read the whole thread, then. I've outlined my criticism of Watchmen quite clearly, as well as my defense of TDK and why it was good. I'm pretty easy to please. I really loved 300. But to pretend that it was ANYTHING more than style is just ludicrous. And to his credit, it has been copied in Spartacus, which I also love. But I don't want to see Superman take on the 300 style, nor do I want to see Superman shot in the same slow pace, porn-style of Watchmen. Not good for Supes.


I think the style of the movie is much more compelling if it complements the film instead of taking over. I don't want to be lost in the art of a film. If I wanted that, I'd just watch Final Fantasy movies over and over again. There's got to be a good balance, which is why I hope Nolan can keep him in check.

I'm neither for nor against it. I just know what I don't want to see.
[Reply]

:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)
[Reply]

Smart post is smart.

Well said, Dane.
[Reply]

Yeah I was just thinking of it in the same vein as the Emperor & Vader and it didn't bother me as much. I'm fickle that way. The other day I thought it was foolish, today not so much to have an older Zod. I don't care for Rickman and think you give him too much credit as a villain but that relates more to casting than the direction of the character. Rickman just seems incredibly gay to me and I dislike everything about him. Maybe the characteristics that make him great to you are also those that make him suck to me but part of it is that I don't like the typecast sorts for roles. I like unconventional thinking for casting. There's obviously exceptions but generally if you give me a villain I like and feel conflicted on some level about disliking, then I'm more likely to appreciate the film.
[Reply]

Smith was saddled with nine billion retarded restrictions, like "Superman can't fly". He had to try to work within that box to keep the gig and he did his best. He could have just walked but he really wanted to give the script a shot. I put that more on the producer being an idiot. If Smith was to write the script without restriction, I guarantee it would be 100% different than the one he penned. He is an uber-nerd after all.
[Reply]

Kevin Smith might be the most overrated director of all time.

Sure, hes a good writer, but as a director hes flat out horrible.
[Reply]

I don't know if I'd even say that Kevin Smith is a "good" writer. He's just barely above average at that thing he does - and he's limited to only "that thing he does." (If that makes any sense :-) ). He's funny, sure. But, I think being considered good at your craft requires more than just a funny bone.

And, yeah, not really a fan of his work as a director. I'm thrilled that he's Superman script never really went anywhere. The idea never really sat well with me.
[Reply]

Yea, pretty much how i feel about him. I enjoy a few of his movies, hes great at one liners....but thats about it.

I understand why he has a following though for sure.
[Reply]

Absolutely. Spot on post. And I too understand his appeal. He's just not for me. Especially, the older I've gotten.
[Reply]