NOLAN MEETING DIRECTORS FOR SUPES, WRITINGS WORDS FOR BATS - Page 4

Honestly, I'm really not doomsaying. I just can't help but remember that WB press release stating that they planned to use Dark Knight as a template for their other big comic characters. It's eyebrow raising. Especially with those reports about the direction they are considering for The Flash and the rather grotesque nature of some of the design work coming out of the Green Lantern camp.

Well I do firmly agree that this blanket "just TDK it up" nonsense is just that. It's a bad idea.

That's partly why I think Nolan on Superman is a good thing. I think he of all people would combat that idea and understand that the character calls for a different approach.

Man I hate Goyer.

maybe

Agreed, but I remember people saying the opposite of why Nolan was a bad idea when this news broke.

I am concerned with Nolan in the czar position for the same reasons I was concerned when Burton held the rights in the 90s.

Nolan has a lot of great films on his resume, but none of them offer the type of tone or visual flare required of a Superman film. He always just struck me as such a debbie downer of a film maker. That might be perfect for Batman, but scares the crap out of me for Superman. I have a general faith in the fact that Nolan is talented and smart enough to not change it wholesale like Burton wanted to do... but I still can't get over the nagging feeling that the Superman film will end up being closer to TDK than Iron Man, and that is a bad thing for this property IMO.

Didn't Inception have like four or five different visual tones? This strikes me as the kind of fan myopia that results in naming a bunch of bald guys to play Luthor.

The "fun" of Nolan doing superheroes (and what I think the "TDK up the whole DC Universe" comment meant on the whole) is how, when he's on, he's tackling the material in ways none of us ever thought of. Surprise me; don't give me the exact movie I'm expecting.

But yeah, it probably won't be too much like Iron Man, that's true.

Thank the fates you're here Phil.

So many people seem to just want the superhero film they see in their head or on the comic book page, no one wants to be surprised or challenged seemingly - and more and more film-makers seem to be happy to give them that (I'm beginning to think Marvel Studios is going to bland the genre to death). No wonder the superhero genre seems so incredibly stale and dull to me these days.

It's why when someone says "Our Flash movie draws inspiration from Seven and Silence of the Lambs" I'm all "Yeah, I have NO idea what the fuck you're talking about, but sure, let's see it." Nolan didn't figure out how to do Batman "right" so much as he figured out something else to do with him. Crucial if they're going to keep doing these things.

Inception was great, but even that film (which is by a mile his most optimistic film) isn't what Superman should be about. Granted this is all just me putting my wants and desires up as fact, but that is really all any of us can do.

I don't think Nolan is the right guy to be the Superman czar just because he made a great Batman movie. That seems to be the WB style, go for a successful filmmaker who brings in the geek cred and give him carte blanche to do what ever they want. That seems to work with Batman, but so far it has had disastrous results for Superman, and I think that is because people keep losing the grasp of what makes Superman the grand daddy of all Superheroes.

It is not about surprise, or giving exactly what you expect. It is about making the film people want to see. People clamor for a Superman story that has the elements that make Superman the uber popular property it has been for 70+ years. I think people want a strait up, fun, optimistic, black and white Superman movie... there is so many shades of gray in the world right now that a classic Superman tale could come in like a breath of fresh ice breath.

I brought up Iron Man because tonally that is much closer to what a Superman movie should be, or at least all the actual fun of it, not the personal foibles of Stark.

Disingenuous. Bryan Singer made a Richard Donner fan film. There's no reason to assume that experience is a template of any sort.

You're presuming to speak for the audience. You're invested, and I get being invested, but the larger audience has no expectations for what a Superman movie should or shouldn't be. They only know they haven't much liked one in a few decades. Putting the "Nolan brand" (when, again, there's really no concrete brand there) on the franchise is smart business. Having his name attached is good for the hype machine. And again, he seems to come at these things with a fresh eye, which on the creative end, is critical right now for a Superman movie to succeed.

Disagree.

...or you could, ya know, look to be surprised and challenged by the movies you want to see made.

I agree that Nolan just had a great take on Batman, not the "right" take on Batman.

But Superman has such a long history of failing when people tried to do something new with it, and almost no attempts to ever tell the story strait. It isn't like this is a tired franchise like Batman was... the last good Superman movie came out in 1980 and in the last 30 years 3 bad films and countless failed attempts to relaunch have left the property ripe for a brilliant, strait forward, fun film. You don't need angst, you don't need shades of gray, just give us Superman against a huge threat, and let him shine as a beacon of hope as he saves the day. In today's cinematic world, that simplistic type of story is ripe for the telling.

Jesus wept there is no 'right take' on fucking Batman.

Singer's failed Superman isn't the first Superman film that WB gave a hot "name" the reigns to. There were several failed attempts throughout the 90s and early 2000s. WB has been using that template for Superman since Batman 1 came out

It is only good business if it works, it wasn't good business to give a hot director the reigns and let him pay direct homage to maybe the most famous Super Hero movie, so no one knows if it is good business until it comes out. I also disagree with the notion that the general audience isn't going to be excited for the New Superman movie no matter what form it takes... there was a HUGE hoopla over "Returns" and the only reason it died off so quick was because the movie sucks. Superman is unique in the sense that no matter how much shit is piled onto him in movies, TV, comics and pop culture in general. He remains one of, if not the most popular character in American culture. There will always be underlying excitement for a Superman movie.

Agree to disagree.

This isn't about wanting a lowest common denominator film. This is about wanting a Superman film. Not a dark, pessimistic tale where Superman loses his faith and has to rediscover why he cares about humans.

There is room for that tale, but you need to establish the initial optimistic, fun, dare I say happy world for any of that to have real emotional value.

Umm... I agree. What in my post made that confusing?

That's an odd complaint. Of course you're going to seek out name talent to resurrect your franchise. Bryan Singer was chosen because he presumably understood the material and had a name among the fanbase. There were only so many people that had an issue with Singer as the director until they saw the fiished film. As far the 90's / early 2000's are concerned, I think the most what the fuck? name attached to the franchise was Oliver Stone, and that lasted for what? Two weeks? Three?

You pick the guy you think can bring something to the table, what they come up with can be hashed out later.