Zack Snyder to direct next Superman film

[tk13]

http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter....medium=twitter

Nolan and Zack Snyder, definitely an interesting team. There are already rumors now that Zod is going to be the villain.

I have to say I'm excited that it "appears" they aren't going to go totally out of left field and do something stupid and out of character for Superman.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Guru

aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnd?

So, "Man Of Steel"... Not a great film. A good film? I'm undecided. I had the same feeling I did after seeing "Iron Man 3"; I'm not sure if I liked it. I think I liked it better than "Iron Man 3". But it's not without its flaws. I'm not sure anyone can do justice to Superman at this point in time; the character is so simple it's complex, if that makes any sense. You can't portray him with the "aw shucks"ness of Christopher Reeve; that worked in the innocent 80s but wouldn't fly nowadays. But you also can't portray him as "The Dark Knight From Outer Space"; we already have Batman, we don't need another one. So this film is sort of floundering in the middle, not sure where it wants to be.

Some of the flaws are directorial and editorial. I think it's one of those films where every scene is just a bit too short. It makes the film move along too quickly and doesn't give the viewer enough time to attach emotionally to the dialogue or characters. It could've benefited from another half-hour earlier on, before the big fight finale. Also, the film takes a quirky approach which will immediately put many people off; this seems to be a Snyder trademark, as his other films like "Watchmen" and "Sucker Punch" had the general public go from "oh boy!" to "what the ****?!?" in around 10 minutes. But, like those two films, those who appreciate the comic-book medium and the almost unfilmability of the stories he's attacking will probably like this film better than John Q. Public will.

The biggest problem--or maybe not "problem", but the biggest issue people will have with the film--is that it's very sci-fi. Much more sci-fi than people will be expecting. You've got phaser guns, space ships, a sciency backplot closer to "Prometheus" than Superman... it gives the whole film a bit of a "War Of The Worlds", "Independence Day" feeling. At first I didn't like it at all. But after the film, I got to thinking: in today's world, the alien-ness of the storyline deserves to have more airtime. As does humanity's reaction to it. In the comics, people just sort of shrug it off; this film does a much more realistic interpretation of how humanity would react to finding out there's life in the universe, and some of that life is right here on Earth, and sort of all-powerful.

Snyder does a good job with the backstory, weaving it into flashbacks instead of telling it in a straight time narrative. It works. It shows Supes in all his ages--child, teen, adult--dealing with the issues of having to hide who he is, and having to resist the urge to kick the shit out of every bully who messes with him. I don't think the film goes far enough with it; it doesn't delve into the darkness that even "Smallville" did in terms of showing Clark Kent waffling about good vs. evil or how he should act. Cavill's Supes is closer to Reeve's than I expected. On the other hand, while Cavill shows some nuances of personality, he's shackled by the cape and tights, as you can only portray Superman within certain limits. You can't have him driving a Harley, drinking Jack Daniels, and slapping women around. You have to stay somewhat within the boundaries of the way the character has been created and portrayed.

The fight scenes are very well done. They show in a much more realistic way what a fight between powerful beings would look like--and what it would do to a metropolis. There's no floating around chitchatting and tossing people into neon signs like in "Superman II"; this film is violent, fast-moving, and literally destructive.

Amy Adams does as much with her role as she can. Lois actually gets little backstory. The film mainly spends time building her relationship with Clark. And while she's not centerfold-pretty, and no longer a young girl, there's something about Amy Adams that I find delicious, so I had no problems with her in this film at all.

The more I think about it, the more I like the film, but there's just something wrong with the whole tone. I'm not sure what. Maybe it's the fact that the film starts on Krypton and goes totally sci-fi right out of the gate, I don't know. When you combine the sci-fi with the choppy quick editing... I just think the film could've been improved with another half-hour of exposition at the front end. Maybe it's just me.

This film will make a good amount of money in the opening weekend but I think it'll put off a lot of casual fans and won't make nearly the money people are expecting. Parents will take their kids to this and both the parents and kids will find out this isn't their grandfather's Superman. But, again, Snyder was almost in an unwinnable, unfilmable situation.

I'm ridiculously overtired and rambling. Maybe I'll have clearer thoughts tomorrow. (Today. Whatever.)

[007]

That is the biggest response an "and" EVER got.

That was a very good read JD. Thanks.

[Sure-Oz]

Seems mixed ...I've heard the first 45 min is epic and the rest is pretty damn good. Hurry up weekend!

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

Seems mixed ...I've heard the first 45 min is epic and the rest is pretty damn good. Hurry up weekend!

I guess it depends on your definition of "epic". If you're a comic book nerd interested in a Krypton backstory, it's the first half-hour. If you're more interested in battles, it's the last half-hour. If you're more interested in the story about how a small alien boy grows up and introduces himself to a tentatively frightened humanity, it's all the stuff in the middle. I'm not sure I'd describe any of it as "epic", although the last half-hour's a good fight. I don't know why so many critics dislike the "typical" last act; if you ask me, the fact that Superman is so powerful and rarely faces much to hold him back is what makes the character a bit boring, so watching him go toe-to-toe with equals works for me.

I like the film better this morning. I want to see it again (which I didn't want to do with "Iron Man 3"). I like how they handle Clark/Lois (or, more to the point, how they didn't handle it). I like how they handle Clark's growing-up with flashback scenes. I like how they didn't go the typical route with his story, as Snyder tweaked things and eliminated things, mainly altering how Clark and Lois meet, how much she knows about him and how she finds her information out, how Clark and his dad get along, how his dad kicks the bucket, what serves as Clark's "Fortress Of Solitude" in terms of educating him, and what weakens Superman (spoiler--no Kryptonite, per se, but something that does the same thing and seems like a better explanation). I like how Snyder handled the interaction between a powerful alien hiding on Earth and the people on Earth who would both fear that and seek, out of fear, to control or stop it. (This film doesn't have the sappily adoring public of Donner's "Superman" films.) I even like how Crowe handled Jor-El. But, again, it's just a slightly bad film because of the pacing and direction; it's the kind of film where I'm not sure the crowd is going to make much noise, and will shuffle out quietly, neither of those things being good things that bear promise for a film's success. "Iron Man 3" sits at $395M; "Star Trek Into Darkness" sits at $202M; if someone put a gun to my head and said "pick a number" I'd say $300M domestic.

[Sure-Oz]

Thanks for the detailed responses.officially 59% on RT as rotten. Didn't see that coming.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

The biggest problem--or maybe not "problem", but the biggest issue people will have with the film--is that it's very sci-fi. Much more sci-fi than people will be expecting. You've got phaser guns, space ships, a sciency backplot closer to "Prometheus" than Superman... it gives the whole film a bit of a "War Of The Worlds", "Independence Day" feeling. At first I didn't like it at all. But after the film, I got to thinking: in today's world, the alien-ness of the storyline deserves to have more airtime. As does humanity's reaction to it. In the comics, people just sort of shrug it off; this film does a much more realistic interpretation of how humanity would react to finding out there's life in the universe, and some of that life is right here on Earth, and sort of all-powerful.

It will be interesting to see how 'John Q Public" responds to more and more outlandish sci-fi creeping into the super hero genre. Honestly, it makes sense because what else are you going to pit an superbeing against that works? Another super powered being of course.

But up till this point, the most popular super hero movies were Nolans Batman and Ironman, who techically dont have any superpowers. Just rich guys who can create super machines and gadgets. and of course those movies went with the more realistic and earthbound stories. Now, even the Marvel movies are headed into more and more sci-fi with the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, Cronos, etc.

It will all be dictated by box office of course. Green Lantern had a ton of sci-fi and the public didnt respond (it was also an awful movie). I would assume most comic book nerds love the sci-fi stuff and "general audiences" wont respond to it as much.
Posted via Mobile Device

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

It will be interesting to see how 'John Q Public" responds to more and more outlandish sci-fi creeping into the super hero genre. Honestly, it makes sense because what else are you going to pit an superbeing against that works? Another super powered being of course.

Aw, c'mon, man! You didn't think Richard Pryor as a computer hacker was a suitable opponent for Superman in the Richard Donner films?

[bevischief]

All the reviews I have read have been positive and the geeks are loving it.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Aw, c'mon, man! You didn't think Richard Pryor as a computer hacker was a suitable opponent for Superman in the Richard Donner films?

That was NOT a Richard Donner film.

[Fish]

Spoiler alert... Batman cameo...

[the Talking Can]

mendelson gave it a harsh review...but he can be pretty persnickety

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen...-takes-flight/

After seeing Man Of Steel, I’m still not entirely sure what Chris Nolan’s “big idea” for Superman was. The film is less a mythic story and more a propulsive study in consistent movement, in a way that will remind people of J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek films. But while those often weakly-scripted action pictures are saved by the chemistry of their cast and a periodic sense of adventure, no such miracles occur here. The film lacks the very things we expect from a Superman film, especially one telling his mythic origin. There is no joy, no sense of discovery, no sense of wonder or hope. The film is so plot-heavy that is lacks basic character interaction, leaving only big-scale spectacle which can only be enjoyed if one turns off their moral compass.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Meant to post this earlier, know some of you were looking for spoiler free reviews:

I do like this guys reviews. He's got one of there right now about the blue ray release of Ninja III the Domination that is roll on the floor hilarious.

[keg in kc]

Heading out shortly. We shall see what we see.

[siberian khatru]

Down to 57% on Rotten Tomatoes. WTF?

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Down to 57% on Rotten Tomatoes. WTF?

I expect the amazon reviews to exceed these bs reviews. Nerds everywhere love it...some casual fan friends of mine saw it and are going again. One of them said it was really violent and the action sequences were amazing and lived up to his expectations

Im not worried about it at all