NOLAN SPEAKS ABOUT BATMAN/SUPERMAN/INCEPTION, WE READ IT

Long as Nolan is heavily involved, and maybe Warner Interactive lets Rocksteady ease off making another game after Arkham City, I'm all the fuck over an Inception game.

Level one: Car Chase
Level two: Zero-Gravity fight
Level three: Snow fortress assault
Level Four: Boss fight

Seriously though, I'm excited they're actually considering pursuing this! The video game doesn't necessarily have to involve Cobb, but it would be interesting to see what other jobs he took before the events of the movie. Hell, I'd just like to play in that universe.

Think deeper...

The idea of all the NPCs (who are going about their business) suddenly turning on you when you interact with your mark or when you start bending the "reality" too much has awesome potential. Hell, so does the "bending reality" angle. Maybe even a customizable "create/construct a dreamscape" tool.

I'm not a gamer, so what jumped out at me was the awful news about Superman.

I'm very glad he’s is isn’t answering the Inception questions. The ambiguity is part of what makes that film great.

This.
Add th fact you have to synch the kicks (or simply the fact the actions on one level intercept the level below...) and it will be a great game to play.

I'm with you there, Phil. I don't trust Synder to do this project any justice if left to his own devices. This is a guy who needs a strong producer to help rein in some of his more excessive proclivities.

I tend to think a Superman movie should be excessive.

It's not like there's one brand of excessive. There's certainly a Zack Snyder brand of excessive.

Sure, and I think that's a perfectly fine fit for a Superman flick. That could be my utter apathy toward to the character talking, though.

I feel like the Superman film that needed to be made was in 1978 and to some extent in 1980 with SUPERMAN II. I think everything they've tried to do since, including the terrible sequels and aborted attempts, have failed for this reason. I think this version will also be a failure. I do not believe a man can fly again.

The article need another update regarding the score...

Well in that case, you *might* not be the best guy to ask about what a Superman film should or should not be, then. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP! *Kidding* *Kidding*

Though I don't play videogames at all, I have several gamer friends and I dragged a handful of them along for the midnight screening of the film, which they loved, and it was very obvious to me why.

I believe it was Phil who once stated that he believed that heavy gaming lead to poor film watching, and a few of my younger friends are perfect examples of this, but at least INCEPTION captivated them in some way, so they'll be especially pleased to hear this news.

Ah, yes! Imagine being able to rotate/distort/whathaveyou the landscape as endless waves of normal-looking NPCs start coming for you! Already had a pretty good zero-gravity/landscape distorting engine in Dead Space, so the technology should be good for it!

(Apologies, excited at the creative possibilities, gaming-wise)

As to Snyder's excessive style, I can see it working as long as Superman has some over-the-top villains to fight. I've seen Suckerpunch, and while I have issues with said movie, the ridiculous, stylistic fight scenes? Not one of those issues.

Just came in to brag: I totally called his lack of involvment concerning Superman ages ago, when the story broke that he was Godfathering.

I think the Donner films do a fantastic job at capturing the spirit and tone of the character. But they're not without their flaws (there is some wild variation of tone [for the film as a whole, not the main character], among other things). If Snyder can similarly capture the heart of the character with much better effects and action, we'll have something great on our hands.

And I for one don't believe Nolan's going to be as hands-off as he's saying. Warners has to be understandably really wary of what anyone's going to do with Supes, and will want a trusted, tested person guiding the overall production.

And isn't Snyder sort of Nolan's shift doppelganger? Up until INCEPTION, wasn't a common criticism of Nolan that his films were polished and structurally sound, but lacked an emotional core? Isn't Snyder often criticized for creating extremely dazzling images that lack emotional/connective core? Maybe the lessons Nolan's learned on TDK and INCEPTION will be transmitted to Snyder's take on Superman.

I remain hopeful, but wary.

Ultimately this looks exactly like what many of us suspected all along; Nolan paws at the script a little bit, gives a note or two, slaps his name on the box, and that's it.

Honestly, could it have ever been any other way? Nolan has said time and time again that he's a one project at a time guy, and he's been true to that claim, so it stands to reason that he'd have no interest in splitting his time between projects. This is Snyder's game, God help us all.

Im with you on this. People were pissy at Returns for not being actiony enough. Now a certified action director's involved, and everyone remains pissy. I don't know what the hell anyone wants for this character, nor do I care, but all i want is for Snyder to just keep that motherfucker's exploits interesting, and no, punching robots does not measure up enough for my liking. Not for this character. Luckily, an interesting film is a guarantee with the talent already behind the camera.

I think Synder's Watchmen pretty demonstrated he doesn't understand the heart of any character or theme.

Frankly I really wish they just gave Bryan Singer another shot with a better script. A few items notwithstanding (like that stupid bullet in the eye thing), I thought Superman Returns just looked fantastic. I loved the way Singer shot the film and how warm it looked in a lot of scenes.

Superman should really go for a period, art-deco kind of feel. Like the old Fleischman cartoons. Then we might have something.

The problem is that the people who are not on the Snyder train (like myself) are not warm to the way he makes movies. To paraphrase Phil, it's not like there's one brand of action, and Snyder is not a brand that I stand by.

Edit: By the by, the thing that made the action in SR so disappointing was that Singer has shown that he can shoot exciting, visceral action scenes, it's just a pity that when he made SR he was under the impression that it was still 1978 and that we'd ooh and aaah to the same shit. Wrongheaded, but not incapable.

Quick, favorite action sequence in Watchmen!

I thought the bullet in the eye was damn cool. And yes, SR looked fantastic. But it was just Donner rehashed/rewarmed, with some truly awful elements thrown in (that fucking kid, Kate Bosworth making Katie Holmes look like Meryl Streep, that fucking kid...). I don't want Singer near the character again.

That would be pretty fantastic.

When The End appeared on the screen.

Let's compromise: no Singer, but we use his DP.

You know what's amazing about that film? Even the rape scene looked like it was choreographed by Woo-ping Yuen. It's the way I've always imagined that scene being shot, that's for sure.

The Comedian getting utterly dismantled by Ozymandias?

Also, wasn't the point of that movie that punching random shit doesn't solve anything in the long run anyway?

Video game movies almost always suck.

Would you have described that scene in the book as an action scene? It was a murder scene, kinda, no?

That was the point of the BOOK, sure.

It's still a murder. The Comedian still has zero chance in that scene. He laughs at how pointless the "fight" is. He's the only one of the heroes that does before going out. That's true to the book.

I don't know if he has *zero* chance, I mean, like everyone else in the film he has superhuman strength that allows him to punch chunks out of walls and shit.

I'm with Phil on WATCHMEN. Snyder's visual style is utterly wrong for the story, and actually works against the story's (as presented in the book) main themes.

Yeah, but what I'm hearing you say is Snyder took a murder scene from the book and made it into what you label your favorite action sequence in the movie. That's what troubles me about Snyder in a nutshell. But I'm only talking about one movie, so who knows what he'll change up this go round.

Yeah, I don't understand why everything needs to have a definite answer. I had alot of questions after watching Mulholland Dr. and Memento as well, and got some answers from online sites, but I think ambiguity is the reason why these films stay with you long after the credits roll. I'm glad that Nolan kept the answers to himself, even though Michael Caine was very frank about what he knew about the unresolved elements of the movie.

I still wish Nolan would change the title of the third Batman movie, though; Dark Knight Rises just sounds rather strange and lackluster.

Just one gal's opinion, but the prolem with Superman is that his omnipotence renders him uninteresting. You make a character so powerful, and give him a weakness that has been used over and over to the point of becoming a parody of itself, and the audience is bound to lose interest. What is interesting about an all-powerful alien? We know he can kick pretty much everyone's ass, so any fight scene involving him loses all tension, unless it's with another Kryptonian. So the physical stuff renders him nigh impossible to relate to. Why, let's get inside his head! That'll get the audience on his side! He's alone in the universe? Who cares? His physical prowess has always taken center stage over his psychological state, so there goes that. None of the films have really sold me on what it's like for a guy who thinks he's the last of his kind. I might catch shit for this statement, but fuck it: Doctor Who sells it. The Superman movies don't. And while I'm no big Spider-Man fan, at least he can be killed in a variety of ways, rather than having a single weakness. Batman, same deal. Superman? Hold up that green shit and watch him fall out like a little girl at a Justin Bieber concert. Every. Single. Time.

Maybe they'll put a new spin on it this time, but I can pretty much envision the entire film before I see it. Bumbling Clark. Snarky Lois. Grand scheme to take over the world. Romantic flight. Green shit. End credits. I've seen it all before. I need something new to keep it fresh, but the mythology for this character sort of prevents that. Now, I'm just speaking about the films. Haven't read the comics, so maybe there's some exciting and radical things that they do with the character in that medium. In the film medium, however, I've lost interest in seeing Superman.

The point of WATCHMEN was that there was a successful comic made in 1985 called WATCHMEN so hey let's make it into a movie for some reason.

Yeah, but Synder "got" it, he did. He "got" Watchmen like a motherfucker.

Fuck the Superman news, I couldn't care less about that shit. The best thing about that article is the level of enthusiasm towards Bats3. I was worried he just wanted that movie finished so he could get on to new original stuff. That we would get a half-assed, convoluted mess of a third movie. But he seems genuinely excited about it and that makes me a happy man.

RE: Harley. The 90s Animated Series is pretty much the only medium to provide a perfect balance for all youre speaking of. Supes could be hurt with enough force, Clark Kent was stiff, but capable. Kryptonite was used with restraint. And there was still plenty of heroism andheart without letting it get stale.

Plus the animated series had my favorite Superman-plot ever: Superman being brainwashed into thinking he's Darksied's son, leading an armada to conquer earth and snapping out of it just in time for Lex Luthor to go "see? See! He can't be trusted, we must execute him!"

The more interesting villains come into play, the more interesting Superman is.

Sad to see that the story about Mr Ledger's return has been "debunked". As perhaps some of you are aware, I've long felt that digitally resurrecting him would be the best way to pay tribute to his legacy and end out the trilogy as it was originally intended

A cameo might have felt crass though, either you bring him back and make him THE villain, or just don't do it at all

So, a literal digital death puppet running around for most of the movie wouldn't be crass?

That seems rather insensitive.

It's a trade off. I think the worst slight of all when it comes to Ledger's legacy would be to abandon the character he built and the arc that was originally intended for the Bat films

Kind of a moot point at this stage though, I guess, since that's not the direction they're going

I actually appreciate the way Snyder puts his action beats together. But he puts them together in ways that don't always fit the material and actively undo what the movie should be about (in Watchmen's case, at least).

Hmm, what would WATCHMEN have been like if Nolan had directed it?

Possibly closer to what Greengrass had in mind? Nolan seems like he could've been a happy medium between Greengrass and Snyder's approach to the material. By the way he adapted The Prestige, I think Nolan wouldn't have been as afraid of not sticking so damned close to the novel.

I've criticized Nolan's action direction before, but I think such flaws could've gone well with an adaptation of Watchmen. Way more appropriate than Snyder's super slick style, anyway...

Exactly. It was perfect for 300, but all wrong for Watchmen. Although it's not difficult to imagine the studio not being confident in the cerebral, hard-R superhero property they were developing, and making it clear he was being hired to "300" it up some.

The problem with Watchmen's action is that the style was suited to a more straightforward superhero flick. Superheroes don't get any more straightforward than Superman.

Better.

The correct answer to "what is the best action sequence in Watchmen?" is "the Rorschach prison break."

The problem is that there aren't many other action sequences in the source material. But that didn't stop Snyder from turning lots of the book's scenes into action sequences.

The sex scene even feels like an action scene. A bad one.

Snyder might have "gotten" the source material, but it's not as if that's a triumph in of itself. The book is brilliant but it's not exactly subtle and doesn't take a code breaker to fucking get it. Snyder's problem is that he feels like he needs to rub our nose in how much he gets it. I know a lot of people love that credit sequence, but for me it felt like the moment I became disconnected from the movie. It's flashy, showy, unsubtle and puts the kind of background detail you might find in the book front and center, under a microscope.