TURNS OUT ARONOFSKY'S ON THAT SUPERMAN LIST, AFFLECK WAS TOO

With that in mind, Rachel Weisz would make a damn good Lois Lane.

Of the names on that list I would love to see Snyder take the movie...

But I am afraid Aronofsky is going to get it though.

Why does WB feel they have to force Batman creatives onto Superman? It would have been awful with Burton and I am really worried that a Nolan produced, Aronofsky directed Supes film will also just feel wrong.

Superman needs to be optimistic, big, broad and most importantly fun... Snyder seems to be the only guy capable based on the list we got IMO.

ETA: fixed the multiple misspellings of Aronofsky

Leave it to Anal to look at Aronofsky and go "Meh, I'd rather have Snyder."

It isn't that I don't like Aronofsky, but Superman needs a filmmaker with visual flare and a knack for fun... Aronofsky and Nolan combined have made a total of 1 film combined I would consider fun (Inception)

Of course Nolan and Aronofsky are better filmmakers as artists, but that is not what Superman needs or deserves.

I'd rather have Snyder only because, like Jones, thats a guy whose talent I do not want chained down to rules and regulation. And that's exactly what will happen if he got on Superman.

I'd actually kill to see Affleck get his shot at the directorial big leagues with this. He's got the chops, and he knows his comics.

I don't want to see Aronofsky get tied up in a summer blockbuster franchise. Also I couldn't care less about Superman.

Well for my money, that's what any film needs and deserves.

Also, I kind of sort of get the "don't tie him down" thing with Jones (although if the filmmaker plays their cards right, this kind of thing could really help their career. Look at what Nolan has been able to leverage through his Batman films), I don't get it with Aronofsky.

I love his artier fare, but he's now done five in a row. Hell, that's ALL he's done. Seeing him take on something like this would be a welcome change for me, and would actually be a challenge I think. A chance to stretch his wings, and a much better one than Robocop at that.

I agree that Affleck might just kill this, he has the first hand experience on those big budget action extravaganzas and he is 2 for 2 in the directing realm. Plus Affleck directing Superman might just have more than a few similarities to the potential Kevin Smith written Supes movie that never happened.

That said, he seems to be out of the running.

Let's not confuse Warner with Fox. These are the guys who went along with Nolan's revamp of Batman, gave Watchmen tons of leeway and promotion, and even gave Singer carte blanche for Superman; the reason that movie didn't work wasn't due to studio meddling.

They've more than made a name for themselves as being a studio that lets creativity and artistry to shine through even their big name properties. I think putting Jones or Aronofsky in there can only give them a bigger sandbox to play in and cut loose. Footloose.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Also...
This probably made me laugh way harder than it should have. Thanks.

The Kevin Smith Superman script was, by his own admission, not really a good script. We need the exact opposite of that.

I'm having trouble imagining a studio-backed, huge budget Superman film that would be more interesting than any film Aronofsky's ever done prior. Except maybe Pi.

Kevin Smith associations aside, I'm kinda really bummed Affleck's out of the running.

The best filmmaker isn't always the best filmmaker for a movie, Nolan and Aronofsky have such a dark sentimentality that either their talents are wasted, or the film feels wrong... either way it seems like a loss to me.

That said, Robocop would be right up Aronofsky's ally IMO, I would much rather see him tackle that property as opposed to Superman. Talented filmmakers working on big budget fare is awesome, they should still play to their talents though.

And you wouldn't get that script, but there were really great elements of that story that might make it's way through... the film Smith described in the evening with Kevin Smith DVD is far and away better than any Superman film we have gotten since the original.

Mr Affleck would have been a good choice (I actually just rewatched HOLLYWOODLAND a few days ago), but had the film flopped or been viewed to under perform, it could have hurt his burgeoning directorial career. So, perhaps it's better that he didn't jump at the offer

As for the prospect of an Aronofsky / Nolan team up.. obviously that would be 'rad' (to borrow a phrase from the decade of my birth). With that said, my understanding is that ROBOCOP might still possibly one day happen if MGM ever straightens itself out, and that's a universe I'd much rather see him tackle. Getting involved in the SM franchise could tie him down for a long time, dooming ROBOCOP as a future entry for the 'films that never were' column.

Ultimately though, should he get the gig, he'd no doubt do great work and I prefer him over all the other previously listed choices. If it weren't for potential ROBCOP snafu, I'd be willing to sign off on his hiring right now. Aronofsky needs to join the club Nolan currently finds himself a member of; someone with artistic integrity who is trusted by the studios with the kind of budget necessary to fulfill their wildest imaginings. That can only happen with a successful blockbuster under his belt. If that film needs to be SUPERMAN in order for us to get Aronofsky's INCEPTION, so be it

I get that, but this still adheres to the assumption that all Aronofsky can do is grim and gritty or dark. I think he could do an amazing job with something like this and step outside his normal "zone."

Based on that list I'd go
ARONOFSKY
Snyder
Jones
Affleck

Tony Scott at the bottom.

I think people who are trying to pigeon hole Aronofsky are making a mistake. I don't want superman to be made "dark" like batman but I think there needs to be a bit of edge. I think Singer showed us the Donner prototype lacks punch today.

I have a strong hunch that, with Nolan in charge, we're looking for more of a proxy director. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if Reeves got it. And I'd be cool with that, because I'd honestly rather Nolan direct it than anyone we've heard from so far. Aronofsky's great, but his concept for Batman was deeply stupid, and his grim 'n' gritty mindset (which, in this case, is not meant as a disparagement) is even further from what you want in a Superman movie. I don't think it would need to be all sweetness and light, but a really good Superman movie can't have "grit" to it. It's fantasy, and it needs to be handled as such. (Yes, I know Nolan's pretty gritty himself, but that's mostly just been his take on Batman.)

I actually think Affleck would be pretty good casting as Superman...

True, and a talented Filmmaker can go out of his shell and still make a classic... But it is not like the alternative is Brett Ratner or Uwe Boll, Zack Snyder is also a really good filmmaker, and a filmmaker who has already exhibited the ability to make the kinds of films that I think Superman needs to be.

In all honesty the whole list is quality, and if we ended up with any of them the new film will garner excitement, I just have more reservations about how WB has been handling their Comic properties and a few names on the list strike me as "more of the same" from the company that seriously considered making a Superman movie with out a cape, costume or flight because Tim Burton was interested.

Do people really find The Fountain to be grim 'n gritty?

Yeah, the more I look at that list, Snyder's the obvious choice.

I ever so mildly disagree with that.

Nolan has made a bunch of films that, while quite good, are debbie downers through and through. Only Inception shows a lighter touch. Nolan always struck me as such a pessimistic type of filmmaker, which made him so perfect for Batman.

I saw several similar posts at the other thread. Considering it has a tight release date It wouldn't consume a lot of time and could boost Duncan or Darren careers. Both are good choices as I said earlier.

Because it deals with death there's a certain "darkness" to it I suppose. I find it to be a very beautiful and uplifting film, ultimately.

But yeah, I was going to throw that out as an example of him doing something different.

Not "grim 'n gritty" per say, but dark for sure... It is a brilliant film but it shows me very little that gets me excited for his Superman movie.

I'm torn on this, because, on the one hand, his take on Batman was silly and seemed to play right into that stupid mindset wherein "realistic" and "gritty" is mistaken for "good". Batman's not realistic, and I wish people would stop trying to pretend otherwise. Nolan's take on Batman is about as real-world as you can reasonably get, and I still think it tried too hard to get away from what makes superhero stories work.

On the other hand, this is the guy who made The Fountain, which displayed a lot of the aspects that would make for a perfect adaptation of something like All-Star Superman. The elegant handling of the fantasy aspects, the appropriate cosmic scale, the surreal but grounded tone, even some of the themes were similar. So I dunno.

Hah, well, I see I'm late to that part of the discussion. I'm certainly willing to give Aronofsky a chance, and I'd rather he or Duncan Jones than anyone else on that list (except maybe Reeves as a proxy for Nolan, as mentioned).

Please stop rooting for Snyder. Please just stop.

Aronofsky should do it so that I can view some of his prior filmography as new origins for Superman's rogue gallery.


Pi = Lex Luthor/ Brainiac

The Fountain = Mister Mxyzptlk

The Wrestler = Metallo.

Why because he is a good filmmaker who has the chops and established style to make an awesome Superman film?

He's not a good filmmaker. At all. And I don't know what his "established style" might be good for, but it's certainly not Superman. Or any movie viewable by humans.

Superman's not just a mindless action character. He's actually more of a (pseudo) SF character. It needs someone who can do slick, smart and big. It's sort of the reverse situation of Ang Lee's Hulk, where they got a thoughtful, atmospheric director to handle a character that needed to be big and loud and kinetic. (I could just about see Snyder doing a decent Hulk movie. Though he'd probably screw it up somehow.)

People seem to forget that Aronofsky's Batman script was co-written with Frank Miller, which explains a lot of it - Aronofsky says now it was "to practice writing with someone else", and when you read that script, it smacks of Miller-isms like rewriting Alfred into a big black mechanic for no real reason and basically playing up the insanity inherent in a comic book hero like Batman.

And I'm not so sure this is going to be a "proxy" director in any way, shape or form. This, being a bit more special effects filled (guaranteed), is going to have to go into shooting at about the same time that Nolan's next Batman goes if it wants to make a December 2012 release. Nolan's gonna have his hands full with a gigantic production himself. I don't think Nolan's going to be on set everyday, or even that much. His input seems to be coming through in pre-production and will probably show up again in post.

Funny that the picture accompanying the article was from Azzarello and Jim Lee's "For Tomorrow" storyline, an ambitious but ultimately wrongheaded Superman IV redux.

I say that to mean the storyline deals with Superman taking on real world issues (thinly veiled allegory for the War in Iraq), in which he destroys all the weapons in a war torn Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately all the citizens pick up sticks and stones and throw them at Superman, proving to him that if people want to fight, they will fight. When he tries to intervene even further, he uses a Kryptonian WMD to accidentally zap half the world's population (including Lois) into the Phantom Zone.

Interesting idea, and even included a big fight with a Doomsday wanna-be and a General Zod that doesn't even exist anymore, but proved too dour and melancholy for a Superman story. The imagery, with Superman having existential discussions with a Priest that's lost his faith, proved way too heavy handed.

My point? This is what I fear out of a Nolan/Aronofsky fueled Superman effort. Of course with Snyder's past output I never would have suspected he could do an Epic Owl kid's movie. There is indeed a chance that N/A have it in them to direct a big, pulpy, Superman fighting aliens and giant robots movie. They should probably check out that Man of Steel spec script that was floating around Hollywood like ten years ago.

Well agree to disagree then. I liked Dawn of the Dead, really liked 300 and 100% loved Watchmen so in my mind he is a very gifted visual filmmaker with the chops to make the Superman film we have been waiting decades for.

I would also like to say that of course Superman is more than mindless action, but the very nature of Superman is endless optimism, hope and happiness... those are attributes that I have not seen in any Aronofsky film and scarce few Nolan ones, which is ultimately my biggest concern.

Honestly Snyder isn't the perfect choice, but of the listed names, I think he would be great.

Really, I just want to know more about Goyer's script, no major details, just a general idea of what exactly gave the WB such a hard on for it.

Well, I'd rather Aronofsky do this than Wolverine 2. But him doing almost anything else would be better. The guy seems to be on a mission to attach himself to every single superhero property in existence, without ever making a single one. This is, what, his fourth now?

Well if nothing else Snyder can expertly craft a visual setpiece in his sleep, which isn't a bad skill to have for a superhero movie. And come on, scare quotes around "established style"? Love it or hate it, if there's one thing Snyder has definitely done, it's establish a style for himself. Honestly I have plenty of issues with the guy, but depending on what they're planning to do with it I reckon he could be a decent match for this movie.

I do really want to see Aronofsky tackle a Super Hero project, but Superman seems like the wrong direction... Wolverine 2 would be better, but it might be smart for him to stay FAR away from Fox.

ETA: Fox might actually be turning a bit of a new leaf... Singer and Vaughan came back to the X-Men after ugly splits and everything I have heard about the potential new FF seems right on point... lets see how X-Men First Class turns out, because Fox might be headed in the right direction.

Well, uh, yeah, that's sort of the point of a proxy director. Someone who will take your ideas and shoot them because you're too busy yourself, without adding too much of their own flair.

I honestly don't know why people think Snyder has a good visual style. He's a decent technician, but his work always looks ugly to me. Even the stuff that isn't bad CGI looks like bad CGI. Other than that, he's got one trick: SPEED-RAMPING!!!!

Why, though? What about his body of work screams 'this guy would be perfect for a superhero movie'? He genuinely seems to want to make a mainstream movie, which is fair enough. What confuses me though is why an obvious auteur would keep getting attached to these projects that really seem to belong more to other people.

I agree his stuff post-Dawn of the Dead has a weird stagey feel to it, but in 300 at least I think it works with the heightened reality feel of the thing. And aside from that he has a pretty good eye for framing and artful shots.

Why? 2 real reasons:

1) I am always interested in what talented and artistic people can do with pop culture properties like Super Heroes.

2) He seems interested in doing a Super Hero movie and I am a big fan of seeing artistic and talented filmmakers get what they want.

It may work intellectually, but it made for an unappealling experience when I was actually watching it. That and the staginess you mention, which renders all his action scenes surprisingly inert. I always feel, with a Snyder movie, that I'm watching people awkwardly re-enact a storyboard rather than watching actors act or fight. Like Snyder spends all his time telling his actors where to stand and how to move, and no time on their performances. It's rather Lucasesque.

Well fair enough, to each his own. I don't necessarily disagree, I guess in that case I just don't really mind it. I definitely wouldn't want it for everything but I quite like the weirdly 'off' effect of the green screen visuals in Sin City and 300. One of the only times imperfect CGI manages to hit on some kind of unintentional charm for me.

Putting guys like Snyder and Scott and Aronofsky on a list for potential directors seems to suggest that he wants someone with a lot of their own flair to put in the project. Even Jones and Reeves have shown a particular stylized way of composing shots and editing sequences together that makes them stand out a bit. It's definitely not a proxy director situation, if we go by the list. He wants someone who can put a definitive stamp on the movie.

It's pretty obvious that Nolan is using his clout to do something interesting with this film, and possibly give an talented outsider like Aronofsky or Jones their first foray into the big leagues... I for one am excited by the fact that none of these are especially "safe" choices.

Aronofsky has been too dark for Superman, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can switch gears if he has to. Jones is an unknown quantity on a project like this, it'd be interesting but it's no slam dunk. I really think, if supported with a good script and constructive criticism by Nolan, Snyder would blow the world's collective brain with this IP.

I normally 100% agree with you that talented filmmakers are due the benefit of the doubt, especially Aronofsky who has such a proven track record of quality cinema.

That said, this is Superman, the most troubled and misunderstood franchise in the history of cinema... A new Superman film shouldn't be a chance for an auteur to take a risky big budget splash. This film needs to be a home run or as close to that as possible. WB thinks they are doing the "smart" thing by handing the reigns to Nolan and his choice of director, but in reality they need a guy who can make Superman his own. They need a guy like Faverau to come in and make a big unique splash, didn't they learn anything when they gave Superman to Burton in the 90s?

Well no director is completely devoid of personality. But it's such a weird list, it's a little hard to tell what anyone's thinking. It sort of seems like everyone in the room got to yell out the name of a director, and they all went on the list.

The bolded statements are not contradictory. It sounds like exactly what you want is for Warner Bros. to let Nolan and his chosen writers and director make whatever movie they want. Otherwise the logic doesn't compute.

Yeah, I can see where that wording can seem contradictory. Let me elaborate.

The film needs to be a home run, or close to it. I think it is risky to take a guy like Aronofsky who is a filmmaker whose entire filmography is almost a direct opposite to what a Superman movie should be right now, and let him have the movie.

When I say a guy to make Superman his own I mean a guy who uses his own style to excellent ability to make a great film... as opposed to a guy like Aronofsky who either makes a film in his own style (which would be wrong IMO) or he does something different with the film, which represents a greater risk then just getting a guy like Snyder who can play to his wheel house.