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.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I talked to a producer friend tonight that outright hated it. Said Shannon was underused, the dialog was clunky, the final scene ludicrous and the overall tone just crap.

I haven't seen it yet but based on his description, I'll likely be disappointed as well because I thought The Avengers was complete and utter crap, yet it broke box office records.

Shannon was underused, but as I said after my initial viewing (I saw it again yesterday, more on that in a bit...) it felt to me like a lot of things were probably cut for theatrical release. It's a very long movie (2:23) that I have a feeling was significantly cut to minimize its running time, due to being the re-introduction of the character and essentially the beginning of the DC film universe from this point on. Batman Begins, by comparison was 2:21; whereas TDK was 2:33 and TDKR was 2:45. Longer movies came later. I obviously don't know this for a fact, but I would bet there are scenes on the cutting room floor with Zod and Lois that would have strengthened the film (although I'm already a big fan...).

As far as the tone goes, I liked it, but it's very different from anything we've seen in films in this genre, or with this character. So I can understand why an unnamed producer might not like it.

I thought the dialogue was fine.

My first viewing, the final scene (which isn't actually the final scene, but I'm assuming he's referring to the end of the Zod fight) didn't make much sense to me. But it didn't bother me at all during my second. It felt right for some reason, but I'd already seen it, so no surprises there.

About the second viewing, for the most part I liked it as much or more than a first, although a thing or two stood out. The big one is that the dates on Jonathan Kent's headstone read 1951-1997. So he's supposed to be in his 40s when he dies, but Costner when onscreen looks like he's in his 60s. Minor quibble and I understand why (it puts martha in her 60s during the 2013 parts of the film). But it did pull me out of the film briefly during the second viewing.

And who the hell is the giant Kryptonian in the Smallville fight? That one bugged me the first time although I forgot by the time the movie ended. It just felt like there should've been some kind of story there.


All-in-all, I enjoyed the Krypton sequence more the 2nd time, it didn't seem quite as far out, although the call out to Star Wars is still a bit much to me. I still loved the way the movie jumped around to different points in his life. I still loved the way that Lois was introduced to the story and her role in everything. She's my favorite Lois to date, in any incarnation, and that relationship, which I liked the first time, I liked even more the second. And the whole collateral damage complaint seems ever more ludicrous to me after viewing the movie a second time. I didn't realize it the first time, but most of the damage in Smallville is actually done by the US military, either directly or unintentionally, and this is the one spot in the film where Superman actually does warn and/or rescue people on camera. And the Metropolis battle with Zod lasted not very long at all. While the city was trashed, 99% of that was done while Clark was destroying the world engine, and the whole point of that fight beginning to end was that Clark has to kill Zod to prevent Zod from killing people. So that entire sequence actually is Superman saving all the little people. Which is where the poignance of the final scene lies, and I didn't get that the first time through.

Speaking of the real final scene of the movie, I think that marked what will be the tonal shift of the series from this point on, and we won't see another movie with the tone of Man of Steel, and I think that's intentional. Clark has found his place in the world, and the Clark/Lois dynamic, young as it is, is there.

So, needless to say, I still liked it a lot the second time, and I still think it's the equivalent of Batman Begins for this franchise. But being Superman, I think we'll see a more optimistic tonal shift moving forward, although I assume everything will remain as reality-grounded as a series about an alien with god-like powers can be.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

So, needless to say, I still liked it a lot the second time, and I still think it's the equivalent of Batman Begins for this franchise. But being Superman, I think we'll see a more optimistic tonal shift moving forward, although I assume everything will remain as reality-grounded as a series about an alien with god-like powers can be.

Don't get me wrong: I still want to see it. But I'm less enthusiastic about it because he and I have a similar film aesthetic.

I was really hoping for a Dark Knight type cinematic experience. I realize that most movies, period, will never rival that trilogy (unless they're created and directed by Nolan) but with him as a producer, I had high hopes.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I really liked that movie. I loved the Simon and Garfunkel music in the back ground at the Comedian's funeral.

I knew nothing about Watchmen going in. I was expecting Avengers, or Batman, and was blown away. I think Watchmen is 10X the movie Dark Knight is.

[Deberg_1990]

I don't get the hate. I'm an unabashed lover of this film, and I thought Zach Snyder was mostly crap before this. Watchmen, Owls of Gahool and Sucker Punch were awful.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Deberg_1990]

I'm with Dane somewhat on Avengers. Although I do like the film a lot, it was shot flat and boring, almost cheap looking.....and the score sucks. At least Man of Steel looks great and epic with a nice score by Zimmer.

Hopefully Disney will up the production budget on Avengers 2.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frazod

I knew nothing about Watchmen going in. I was expecting Avengers, or Batman, and was blown away. I think Watchmen is 10X the movie Dark Knight is.

Neither did I. I didn't even know it was based on a comic book story until after watching it and researching the characters more. It was so much more intense due to the fact that some of the main characters actually die. Typically in super hero movies they get close but it never actually happens unless it is a villain.

[siberian khatru]

I don't get the hate either.

I got back to work yesterday from vacation, and a co-worker -- who's a bigger Superman fan than I am -- asked what I thought of the movie. I said I loved it. He did too. We compared notes and had very similar takes and reactions to stuff.

I can't say that I'm a big Snyder fan, but I was pleasantly surprised by his "Dead" remake, thought "300" was fine and I really liked "Watchmen," being a fan of the graphic novel (I have not seen "Sucker Punch"). So when he was announced for MoS, I was neutral on it. I carried no Snyder baggage or expectations into the film. I was more thrilled to see Nolan involved with it.

It's odd seeing the wildly different reactions to MoS. I'm not sure why that is. Some of the critiques I've read (not so much here), I could provide specific rebuttals that had me wondering how or why the reviewer could miss something that the film obviously addressed. (My co-worker has had the same experience.)

I found the movie emotionally enriching, which I didn't get from IM3 or Star Trek. To each his own, I guess. I'm just puzzled by how polarizing the film is.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I can't say that I'm a big Snyder fan, but I was pleasantly surprised by his "Dead" remake, thought "300" was fine and I really liked "Watchmen," being a fan of the graphic novel (I have not seen "Sucker Punch").

yea, Living Dead remake was good, and 300 was solid. I was probably a little too harsh on Watchmen earlier. Its ok, just sort of blah and depressing for me. But thats more the source material i guess. Snyder definitely has a nice visual style.

[Setsuna]

I think people are trying to compare apples to oranges in Batman and Superman. They are polar opposites except the desire to save the world or Gotham in Batman's case since he's just a lowly human. Superman will never be Batman and vice-versa. Superman can never have a rival, just people he respects because he's that freaking beast. If they ever do a Green Arrow movie then compare that to TDK. They are more rivals than anything. I absolutely loved Man of Steel and can't wait for more.

[JD10367]

"Sucker Punch" gets a bad rap. Like "Watchmen", I don't think an interpretation of a graphic novel can hold up to what John Q. Public expects... because, let's face it, John Q. Public is a ****ing moron who probably watches "American Idol" and thinks the "Garfield" comic strip is still funny. People didn't 'get' "Watchmen" for the same reason they don't 'get' "Man Of Steel": they go in expecting a traditional superhero movie and don't like what they find.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by JD10367

"Sucker Punch" gets a bad rap. Like "Watchmen", I don't think an interpretation of a graphic novel can hold up to what John Q. Public expects... because, let's face it, John Q. Public is a ****ing moron who probably watches "American Idol" and thinks the "Garfield" comic strip is still funny. People didn't 'get' "Watchmen" for the same reason they don't 'get' "Man Of Steel": they go in expecting a traditional superhero movie and don't like what they find.

I didn't care for Watchmen. I did enjoy Man of Steel. I hate American Idol. Garfield Minus Garfield is hilarious.

[007]

Originally Posted by JD10367

"Sucker Punch" gets a bad rap. Like "Watchmen", I don't think an interpretation of a graphic novel can hold up to what John Q. Public expects... because, let's face it, John Q. Public is a ****ing moron who probably watches "American Idol" and thinks the "Garfield" comic strip is still funny. People didn't 'get' "Watchmen" for the same reason they don't 'get' "Man Of Steel": they go in expecting a traditional superhero movie and don't like what they find.

I didn't care much for Watchmen but really liked man of steel. I see the appeal to watchmen, it just didn't really entertain me that much.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by JD10367

"Sucker Punch" gets a bad rap. Like "Watchmen", I don't think an interpretation of a graphic novel can hold up to what John Q. Public expects... because, let's face it, John Q. Public is a ****ing moron who probably watches "American Idol" and thinks the "Garfield" comic strip is still funny. People didn't 'get' "Watchmen" for the same reason they don't 'get' "Man Of Steel": they go in expecting a traditional superhero movie and don't like what they find.

Sucker Punch gets a bad rap because it's a shitty film and complete waste of time.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Setsuna

I think people are trying to compare apples to oranges in Batman and Superman. They are polar opposites except the desire to save the world or Gotham in Batman's case since he's just a lowly human. Superman will never be Batman and vice-versa. Superman can never have a rival, just people he respects because he's that freaking beast. If they ever do a Green Arrow movie then compare that to TDK. They are more rivals than anything. I absolutely loved Man of Steel and can't wait for more.

"People" aren't comparing them because of their stories or mythos. They're comparing Man of Steel to the Dark Knight Trilogy due to Christopher Nolan's involvement.

Batman Begins, and especially The Dark Knight, were cinematic achievements of highest order. "People" were expecting a similar aesthetic and cinematic experience with Man Of Steel.

Some liked it, some didn't. But in terms of cinema, there's a consensus that it fell well short of any of the The Dark Knight films.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

"People" aren't comparing them because of their stories or mythos. They're comparing Man of Steel to the Dark Knight Trilogy due to Christopher Nolan's involvement.

Batman Begins, and especially The Dark Knight, were cinematic achievements of highest order. "People" were expecting a similar aesthetic and cinematic experience with Man Of Steel.

Some liked it, some didn't. But in terms of cinema, there's a consensus that it fell well short of any of the The Dark Knight films.

Have we ever gotten any official word (Dane, maybe you know) how much involvement Nolan actually had on MoS? I know he's a producer and the "godfather" of the film. But was he around for a lot of the creative input?