Gotta love a belt that says "HEY LADIES, CHECK THE BULGE!"
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Gotta love a belt that says "HEY LADIES, CHECK THE BULGE!"
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 
With elements coming into play like Hans Zimmer being brought on board and the fact Nolan doesn't actually seem to already have a post Batman film lined up yet, I get the feeling he has more of a guiding hand with this than he's publically letting on. Im sure he's giving Snyder his due and creative breathing room, but I get the feeling this is a lot more than a just ceremonial position to appease Time/Warner shareholders.
If Superman fails creatively and/or box office wise (which is very very possible), Snyder can blame Nolan for steering him wrong or whatever. While Nolan has enough clout to emerge from that relatively unscathed, it's always best to have plausible deniability in the film business. Lend your name, but Hollywood will know who really steered the ship and for Nolan that's a win-win situation. He can't lose.
You don't half produce a movie. Guys like him are either totally in or totally out, like Spielberg...who was on the set all the time with Poltergesit, Goonies and Back To The Future. Barely at all on BTTF 2, 3 and many of his subsequently produced films, lending a hand with script notes and that's about it, because once the train starts moving there is only one conducter and half-producting is like trying to give the conductor directions from the ground without a walkie-talkie...he's going too fast and wont see you anyway.
While I'm sure Nolan gave Snyder some pointers, I seriously doubt he's done more than that...not only because it's been stated as such, but because it makes the most sense.
Knowing no more than I've just picked up on a web search and a quick peruse of Abrams' draft script, and combining that with the pictures of Jor-el's costume (which someone said looked like armour) and the casting of Crowe, I wonder if it's the
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
intro with Jor-el as a warlord who sends his only son off to Earth to protect him from the recriminations of losing a civil war and fulfil some kind of Prophecy. Maybe a variation with Zod waging war, with a real hard on for the House of el?
Total, uninformed, speculation of course.

Knowing no more than I've just picked up on a web search and a quick peruse of Abrams' draft script, and combining that with the pictures of Jor-el's costume (which someone said looked like armour) and the casting of Crowe, I wonder if it's the
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
intro with Jor-el as a warlord who sends his only son off to Earth to protect him from the recriminations of losing a civil war and fulfil some kind of Prophecy. Maybe a variation with Zod waging war, with a real hard on for the House of el?
Total, uninformed, speculation of course.
Bingo.
That and they are flat out using the Flyby suit (with minor tweaks).
That would work for me, although I am not as invested in the Superman mythos as others.
I'm actually really enjoying the Abrams' script. It's dynamic, well written and funny. The canvas is big and the Kent stuff is warm and engaging, although in a different way to the Donner film. Already has more energy than the whole of Superman Reruns and I'm only on page 20...
What happened to "Flyby"? Seems like it would have made a pretty good Supes movie.
I wish I could find the quote. Some time around the making of Watchmen there was an Entertainment Weekly interview with Snyder, where he was completely slamming the 'typical' superhero movie.
The internet hated it (without actually having read it based on script reviews) and the studio got scared.
Yeah, I think that may have been the moment the nerd-o-sphere was given too much power. And we all paid the price.
Yep. He was bragging about how WB offered Superman several times and he kept rejecting it. Same thing as the old quote from Peter Jackson when The Hobbit was announced (Back when it was The Hobbit and the "bridge" film) about how he had zero desire to direct a Middle Earth movie again. What happened? Both are in need of big hits after pricey disappointments. And the online movie-news community (being li'l bitches they are) won't pull up those old quotes and call em out.
Quote:

Yep. He was bragging about how WB offered Superman several times and he kept rejecting it. Same thing as the old quote from Peter Jackson when The Hobbit was announced (Back when it was The Hobbit and the "bridge" film) about how he had zero desire to direct a Middle Earth movie again. What happened? Both are in need of big hits after pricey disappointments. And the online movie-news community (being li'l bitches they are) won't pull up those old quotes and call em out.
Thank you! I was starting to think I had imagined it. With that kind of attitude, I can't see how MOS is going to be any good?
Did he mean the ones that are actually good? Seriously fuck Snyder and fuck this movie.
I did a bit o'Googling after I posted. A Drew McWeeny review seems to be the consensus on when it kicked off. I can see some of the criticisms he made, especially
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the Prophecy - it's a tired trope, why can't he just go back of his own accord without there being some element of fate determining the outcome? - but the rest reads pretty well. The meeting Jor-el in heaven bit (which is admittedly a bit clunky) will come over a bit like a rip off of Harry Potter, and that and the Luthor reveal could be risky, but I don't mind that.
I wonder if they'll have Zod somehow responsible for the destruction of Krypton thereby mashing up the classic origin story and the civil war elements of Abrams' script.
Was it this?
Several filmmakers have tried to turn Watchmen into a movie and failed. One issue Hollywood has always had with the material is that it requires an intimate familiarity with the superhero genre in order to fully appreciate it. Does the fact that Watchmen is finally being made into a movie indicate something has changed in the culture?
The average movie audience has seen — well, I can't even count the amount of superhero movies.Fantastic Four, X-Men, Superman, Spider-Man. The Marvel universe has gone nuts; we're going to have a fricking Captain America movie if we're not careful. Thor, too! We're on our second Hulk movie. And Iron Man — $300 million domestic box office on a second tier superhero! And not to demean Iron Man — my point is that we all know about superheroes now. I can ask my mother, ''Mom, when the Hulk isn't the Hulk, who is he?'' ''Bruce Banner. Why? What a weird question.'' I could ask her, ''What happened to Bruce Wayne's parents?'' ''They were killed at an opera.'' You're getting to that saturation level where superhero movies, it's hard for them to figure out what more to do.
We were not careful.
That may indeed be it. I remember something like "Capes and heroes in tights? Please." He was completely dismissive of superhero movies in general.
And calling Heavy Metal 'highbrow comics?" Idiot.
He's saying it's hard to surprise anyone anymore with superhero movies. And with exception, he's right.

I did a bit o'Googling after I posted. A Drew McWeeny review seems to be the consensus on when it kicked off. I can see some of the criticisms he made, especially
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the Prophecy - it's a tired trope, why can't he just go back of his own accord without there being some element of fate determining the outcome? - but the rest reads pretty well. The meeting Jor-el in heaven bit (which is admittedly a bit clunky) will come over a bit like a rip off of Harry Potter, and that and the Luthor reveal could be risky, but I don't mind that.
I wonder if they'll have Zod somehow responsible for the destruction of Krypton thereby mashing up the classic origin story and the civil war elements of Abrams' script.
The real beef with the original Flyby draft was the retard crazy stuff (which incidentally was cut from all subsequent drafts after the McWeeny review).
Spoiler, Bitches, Yo! (Click to show)
Krypton doesn't explode, Lex Luthor is a CIA agent whose really a Kryptonian, Supes dies and visits his father in Kryptonian Heaven?! That shit ain't Superman. The "Kryptonian prince prophecy" essentially is making Superman Moses instead of the oft-referenced Jesus on film. Aside from the lazy-as-shit "Chosen One/Destiny" routine, its fine.
The script got online backlash but WB always loved it (They clearly saw how commercial it was). That, and their need to save money and reuse stuff they spent top-dollar on previous unmade versions explains this. Justify spending all that hot cash. Nothing wrong with that. Part of the process that doesn't get talked about enough, frankly. Hell, the plane rescue from Superman Returns (by and large everyone's favorite part) was taken straight outta older scripts.
Drew was kind of an asshole to write that Flyby review, particularly with that nose-holding tone. I guess he was pretty green back then, and eager for a scoop.
I'm not saying the movie would have been great (it also featured Clark and Lois meeting at a kegger, and airborne martial arts). But the ideas in that thing were different enough that they should have given it a shot, and not let it leak. One doesn't need to be too precious with Superman, who remains in comic strips, comic books, underoos, blankets and DVD boxed sets worldwide on a level no other superhero can touch.
Then again, the director choices were Brett Ratner and McG. On second thought, bury it all in the desert.
Absolutely unheard of claim!
McG is the guy who found both Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill. And he'll never get credit for it. I see why he's frustrated by that.

Krypton doesn't explode, Lex Luthor is a CIA agent whose really a Kryptonian, Supes dies and visits his father in Kryptonian Heaven?! That shit ain't Superman. The "Kryptonian prince prophecy" essentially is making Superman Moses instead of the oft-referenced Jesus on film. Aside from the lazy-as-shit "Chosen One/Destiny" routine, its fine.
To be entirely fair, Superman being Moses instead of Jesus is much closer to Siegel and Shuster's orginal intent.
Well, really, the biblical stuff pretty much belongs to the origin. After that, Superman becomes this modern, different thing. Moses and Jesus are lawbringers, where Superman embodies (among other things) more modern concepts of identity crisis and ideas of goodness that are secular and not necessarily tied down to law or tradition. The Judaic elements are certainly there, but Superman definitely belongs to the post-Enlightenment era. Moses and Jesus were either kings or paved the way for kings. Superman is a voter.
I know we already went through this, but...
From devin's Amazing Spider-Man review:
The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t know what kind of a movie it is. Obviously influenced by Christopher Nolan’s Batfilms (before he makes a costume, Peter swings around the city in the exact outfit Bruce Wayne wore in Batman: Year One
And WB has flat out stated they are following Nolan's bat formula for Superman (since he produced it and came up with the story with Goyer, who is the screenwriter and also wrote Batman Begins and Blade)...obviously studios are getting into some kind of dark and gritty trend influenced by the Nolan bat films. Marvel isn't doing it because they don't have to.
Yet Spider-Man is wearing sliver disco shoes fighting a giant cartoon lizard-man and Superman is punching out aliens. So dark. So gritty. So realistic.
My point is that trying to ape the Nolan Batman films doesn't automatically make your movie dark and gritty.
Big issue is a year from now if we'll be hearing the same "We've SEEN this before!" argument as we are on The Amazing Spider-Man.
Difference (at least the one Snyder, Nolan, etc. will make)? Its been 35 years since the origin was depicted on the big screen. As opposed to 10 years later on Spidey.
Yeah and a man dressed as a flying mouse fights a guy dressed as a fucking scarecrow, and a guy in clown makeup. Oh and there's a fountain of youth in the latest one.
My point is the whole thing started with you saying there wasn't a trend to ape Nolan's batfilms, when clearly there is. Doesn't have to be every single studio and every single comic book film. But I'm positive TDK has been mentioned in lots of studio meetings since the film was released.
I'm sure you are 100% correct in this assumption. But none of that matters if none of the films come out all dark and gritty. My comments pertain to the fact that for years fanboys have collectively decided that we are in the throes of a dark, grim and gritty wave of superhero films, which we are in fact, not. I don't care what buzzwords get tossed around at executive board meetings, I'm talking about the actual end results.
Is there any word or buzz about a teaser for MOS being in front of TDKR? I've sort of assuming there would be, given they're both flagship WB/DC comic properties, but have yet to hear much about it officially or through leaks.

I'm sure you are 100% correct in this assumption. But none of that matters if none of the films come out all dark and gritty. My comments pertain to the fact that for years fanboys have collectively decided that we are in the throes of a dark, grim and gritty wave of superhero films, which we are in fact, not. I don't care what buzzwords get tossed around at executive board meetings, I'm talking about the actual end results.
None of them come out dark and gritty? Excluding Marvel films (which dont need TDK treatment), there are Amazing Spider-Man (which has been seen and confirmed to have Nolan's Batman claws all over it) and Man Of Steel, which WB has coated with Nolan's brush (he's producing and Goyer is writing) and they've stated Nolan's batfilms are an influence. Those are the two biggest names in comic films right now besides X-Men. X-Men Origins Wolverine was developed and shot before TDK made a billion, X-Men First Class was already part of the old X-Men mythos, so changing tone wouldn't make sense. What I'm saying is, there is clearly a "thing" going on concerning Nolan's successful run of bat films and IT IS INFLUENCING DECISION MAKING in comic properties. Some would call that a trend. It doesn't have to be every single comic book film. Not every person has to be wearing baggy pants for it to be a trend.
It's not about a "dark and gritty" angle, but rather a groundlevel approach that, even when fantastical, offers perfectly logical explanations for everything. The Avengers moved away from this with their douchebag redshirt aliens, but stuff like Amazing Spider-Man embraces it.
Batman Begins features a man whose methods may be "supernatural" but where does he get his power? He's been the head of an international terrorist operation that's existed since the dawn of time. They're not just evil, they've seeded themselves within the corporations, institutions, everyday ways of life that we see in cops, politicians, etc. Also, his satellite partners utilize a toxin which may as well be magical, but we see exactly HOW Bruce bloodies himself finding in the roughest terrain finding a precious flower that can produce these results.
Of course, Nolan can get away with this because he doesn't have a binary concept of "good and evil." He also can't resist showing Bruce flipping through circulars in building his weapons (which turn him, in a way, magical - no one just vanishes from a room in mid-conversation). So it's a very specific point of view.
That HAS been adapted in future superhero films, but because there's a less nuanced take on good and evil, we're treated to smaller universes, more casual plot conveniences, more ground-level details. Amazing Spider-Man is probably the guiltiest of this, showing him meticulously building his webshooters, piggybacking off the science of his parents, wooing the daughter of the person in the city who misunderstands him the most. It's charming sometimes, like the one moment where Spidey exasperatingly texts and calls Gwen Stacy in mid-Lizard brawl (less charming on paper), but other times it's simply more of a serious-faced approach that feels the need to explain and over-explain the fantastic. It's not so much grim-and-gritty as over-detailed-and-mundane. You know, so people can relate to it better (i.e. you know, for kids).
Of course it's still early, but there's reason to believe the new Superman does similar things with another fairly uncomplicated view of good guys and bad guys, and a desire to make Superman more "relateable." I very much hope I am wrong.
Exactly. Dark and gritty, Nolan-ized, more realistic, whatever you wanna call it...TDK's juggernaut performance has very obviously altered the comic book-film landscape, and I'd certainly call that a "trend", and I don't see how anyone can say none of it is happening, but whatever... I've never had a dog in this fight.
That's not what people were really talking about (why do I keep defending them?)...they were referring primarily to "tone" more than anything else.
As Greg pointed out in this or some other thread, "dark, grim and gritty" DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING as "realistic, grounded in reality". "Dark, grim and gritty" are the buzzwords I've seen used time and time again to describe this fictional trend. It's not my problem if the nerd-o-sphere can't properly articulate itself.
Sebastian, the nerd-o-sphere can NEVER properly articulate itself. That's why it's the NERD-O-SPHERE.
God, you are so right Gabe.
REP ME, BITCH.

None of them come out dark and gritty? Excluding Marvel films (which dont need TDK treatment), there are Amazing Spider-Man (which has been seen and confirmed to have Nolan's Batman claws all over it) and Man Of Steel, which WB has coated with Nolan's brush (he's producing and Goyer is writing) and they've stated Nolan's batfilms are an influence. Those are the two biggest names in comic films right now besides X-Men. X-Men Origins Wolverine was developed and shot before TDK made a billion, X-Men First Class was already part of the old X-Men mythos, so changing tone wouldn't make sense. What I'm saying is, there is clearly a "thing" going on concerning Nolan's successful run of bat films and IT IS INFLUENCING DECISION MAKING in comic properties. Some would call that a trend. It doesn't have to be every single comic book film. Not every person has to be wearing baggy pants for it to be a trend.
But even if you abide by the weirdly arbitrary "No Marvel" rule (which eliminates something like half the genre), even the remaining films don't really follow the "Batmanning/Nolanizing" trend. To the best of my recollection, these are the non Marvelverse superhero flicks that have come out since 2010 (two years after TDK):
Kick Ass, Super, Jonah Hex, VS, Green Lantern, Green Hornet, Ghost Rider 2
Even if we're generous and dismiss Ghost Rider as a sequel and Hex for being cross-genre, none of the remaining films struck me as particularly reminiscent of Nolan's "dark and gritty" style (though to be fair, I haven't seen VS). Maybe you read those films differently, but the way I see it your evidence consists of possibly one movie and a Superman film that hasn't been released yet. I just don't think one real and one hypothetical movie make a trend. Am I missing something?
You guys realize you disappeared up your own semantics some time ago yeah?

But even if you abide by the weirdly arbitrary "No Marvel" rule (which eliminates something like half the genre), even the remaining films don't really follow the "Batmanning/Nolanizing" trend. To the best of my recollection, these are the non Marvelverse superhero flicks that have come out since 2010 (two years after TDK):
Kick Ass, Super, Jonah Hex, VS, Green Lantern, Green Hornet, Ghost Rider 2
Even if we're generous and dismiss Ghost Rider as a sequel and Hex for being cross-genre, none of the remaining films struck me as particularly reminiscent of Nolan's "dark and gritty" style (though to be fair, I haven't seen VS). Maybe you read those films differently, but the way I see it your evidence consists of possibly one movie and a Superman film that hasn't been released yet. I just don't think one real and one hypothetical movie make a trend. Am I missing something?
You could say Kick Ass started with the notion of being a film about what happens if a person became a real life superhero, but it's all a comedy. So that's where the buck stops with this whole Nolanization.
WB should really throw some money and writers at Robb Pratt one of these days.
Fuck those dickholes! Pay me!
Wait, isn't the trailer for this supposed to come out with Spider-Man? Where is it?
Spider-Man? Why would they do that? It was always Dark Knight Rises.
My mistake.
Over-under on MOS being worse than Superman Returns? I want to say I have confidence that it won't be worse, but I don't.
I didn't think Superman Returns was as awful as most fanboys. I actually enjoyed it despite the sappy love plot and superboy storyline. So I'm quite looking forward to MOS and seeing what Zack Synder can do with this iconic character.
I didn't think Batman Forever was as awful as most fanboys. I actually enjoyed it despite the sappy love plot and Batboy storyline. So I'm quite looking forward to B&R and seeing what Joel Schumacher can do with this iconic character.
What a fantastic impression of me, circa 1997.
I wonder what people said of Battlefield Earth before that was released?
I didn't think Dianetics was as awful as most recovering drug addicts. I actually enjoyed it despite the sappy love plot and volcano ghost storyline. So I'm quite looking forward to BE and seeing what John Travolta can do with his newly reinvigorated iconic status.