Zack Snyder to direct Superman reboot

I know this won't help, but somehow, some of you guys of the industry should print this out and show it to some WB executives - yes, there are negative aspects and critisism, but just because of the love for the franchise and how to make more money with superb quality - something they should think about - if you do something with passion and not overly rushed you can do even better than everyone expected.
 
nickytea said:
Ghostbusters was written, shot, and posted in a year.

Not saying this will rock, but the time crunch does not necessarily a crap film make.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that? I always heard Ghostbusters was worked on by Ackroyd for 6 years - he and Belushi were doing work on that and Spies Like Us a the same time while filming Blues Brothers - when they hooked up with Rietman, he was more interested in doing a "going into business" movie rather than a film that takes place in the near future, so he, Ackroyd and Ramis worked a full year before they shot and while they were shooting - but three Second City (four if you count Moranis) on set is like having Nascar mechanics in your garage. I can see how this can be done - Superman is a different kettle of fish.

tripoli said:
Honestly, coming from the same studio, I am shocked they don't grab the actors from Smallville and run with the new movie from that as an offshoot. Given the basis for the movie currently and constraints, sounds like they could do just that. Given Smallvill ehas the fan base laready, it would insure they have a following fan base going into the new franchise.
Click to expand...

All good points - they should do just that. The only problem I can see as to why they wouldn't is because they do not want to share profits with the Smallville people.

I'm actually re-watching Watchmen right now - slipped it in just to see if it's as horrible as I remember - well, it's nowhere near as bad as Superman Returns but the acting is pretty stilted and for a movie that has one leg in the real world (or an alternate version there of) everything feels -- I don't know... just fake. From the sets to the make-up. The Nixon they have is laughable. This is the first time I've watched the director's cut and there are some scenes in here that would have made the movie much better - the original Owl getting killed and flashing back during his final fight to the old school bad guys was good - but littered with Snyder's slow motion flip shots and tracked motion garbage. I still have absolutely no faith in Snyder, but Watchmen does have little moments here and there. Very little but worth seeing once
 
I liked Watchmen a lot and think Zach did a great job bringing to life a really tough story. He had incredible respect for the source material. I love Chris Nolan and am confident that having him on board to help steer the creatives will give this film a fighting chance of being special. I couldn't be happier with the talent they have chosen this time around. Let's FINALLY see a great Superman movie. 1978 still the best so far.
 
I guess the early reports I read of Jonothan Nolan working on the script were bunk, because he's not really being mentioned anywhere in connection with this project anymore. Bummer. Never really been a Goyer fan.
 
I'm still unclear on the nature of Nolan's alleged involvement. It's beginning to sound more and more like some sort of half-baked publicity stunt. I mean, no director is going to willingly allow another director to "oversee" the creative development of his production.

Whatever Nolan's involvement up 'till now, I suspect we're going to be hearing a lot less from him with regard to this project. Generally speaking, there's only room for one director on a film -- especially when you're dealing with egos as big as Nolan's and Snyder's.

Re: Watchmen: there's no question that the director's cut plays better than that of the theatrical release. It's still an odd flick, but it has it's moments.

Thing is, given the scope and complexity of the graphic novel, the studio was delusional to think the narrative could be satisfyingly condensed into a single feature. Sure, you may be able to tell the story from a purely expositional standpoint, but the effect is like fast-forwarding through a DVD; you get the gist of the plot, but you don't experience the emotions driving the plot.

The director's cut gives a taste of what the film might have been like had the characters had more room to breath and time to develop, but it's still a far cry from anything resembling life (a credible semblance of which goes a long way toward making a thematically complex and heavily stylized story like Watchman watchable).

Fault Snyder all you like, but given the project's built-in limitations he never had a prayer of delivering the sort of mega-hit some were expecting. It's Lynch's Dune all over again; too much story, too much money, too much hype, not enough screen-time.
 
Last edited:
nickytea said:
I guess the early reports I read of Jonothan Nolan working on the script were bunk, because he's not really being mentioned anywhere in connection with this project anymore. Bummer. Never really been a Goyer fan.
Click to expand...

I had read somewhere that Jonathan Nolan pitched Chris Nolan on the story and that is what motivated Chris to get involved. It is possible that other writers were brought in to flesh out the story.
 
The idea of doing the Birthright storyline to me is like being kicked in the forehead. Just... why? There is enough BS floating around about Superman getting to, thinking about, deciding upon, and angsting about the cape. Give me a ******* superman movie where he beats up a supervillain. PLEASE.
 
Jet Beetle said:
Where did you hear that? I always heard Ghostbusters was worked on by Ackroyd for 6 years - he and Belushi were doing work on that and Spies Like Us a the same time while filming Blues Brothers - when they hooked up with Rietman, he was more interested in doing a "going into business" movie rather than a film that takes place in the near future, so he, Ackroyd and Ramis worked a full year before they shot and while they were shooting - but three Second City (four if you count Moranis) on set is like having Nascar mechanics in your garage. I can see how this can be done - Superman is a different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
ghostbusters was filmed in a year. dan aykroyd was constantly writing movie vehicles for he and belushi and ghostbusters was meant to be another one until he died. ramis came in for a rewrite. it was one of many different projects dan had been writing before belushi's death.


I'm actually re-watching Watchmen right now - slipped it in just to see if it's as horrible as I remember - well, it's nowhere near as bad as Superman Returns but the acting is pretty stilted and for a movie that has one leg in the real world (or an alternate version there of) everything feels -- I don't know... just fake. From the sets to the make-up. The Nixon they have is laughable. This is the first time I've watched the director's cut and there are some scenes in here that would have made the movie much better - the original Owl getting killed and flashing back during his final fight to the old school bad guys was good - but littered with Snyder's slow motion flip shots and tracked motion garbage. I still have absolutely no faith in Snyder, but Watchmen does have little moments here and there. Very little but worth seeing once
Click to expand...

i have the directors cut(and tales from the black terror and underthe hood seperate), and theres still much more that is missing from that one. i believe there's an ultimate cut floating around, which includes all the deleted scenes, tales from the black terror, and under the hood. i understand it runs real slow, because he basically filmed the whole book with very little deviation. in that sense its really a masterpiece. it may have transferred to a wider audience if it werent over 3 hrs long in fullest form. i love the movie, but lately when i watch it there's so much going on at once (because there's so much going on in the book at once) the visuals,sounds and effects overwhelm me and i end up falling a sleep. not from boredom, its far from that, its from being so overwhelmed it drains my system. its very strange.

btw, it took me a week to get through the animated comic, which was read by a man that even did the voices for women.

so, based on how it affects me personally, i think it is a much better book in its book form. it would have benefited it more if it were split up over the course of a few movies.
 
themanwoaname said:
ghostbusters was filmed in a year. dan aykroyd was constantly writing movie vehicles for he and belushi and ghostbusters was meant to be another one until he died. ramis came in for a rewrite. it was one of many different projects dan had been writing before belushi's death.
Click to expand...

Not to veer too far off topic, but to follow up on this: the version of GB Aykroyd had been writing all those years bears almost zero resemblance to the version we now know. (Reitman, on Aykrod's forty page "first draft": "It took place on a number of different planets or dimensional planes. And it was all action. There was very little character work in it.")

Reitman paired up Akryoyd with Ramis and the instruction to set it in a modern context. He then pitched the basic conceit -- without a script -- to the studio. He told them who was involved, and they asked how much it would cost. The studio said if they could make the picture for 25 million and have it ready for release in summer of 1984, they'd have a deal. At that point, with no script, they had exactly a year to complete the movie for release.

If you can get your hands on the book "Making Ghostbusters", its an incredibly detailed look into the production.
 
nickytea said:
Not to veer too far off topic, but to follow up on this: the version of GB Aykroyd had been writing all those years bears almost zero resemblance to the version we now know. (Reitman, on Aykrod's forty page "first draft": "It took place on a number of different planets or dimensional planes. And it was all action. There was very little character work in it.")

Reitman paired up Akryoyd with Ramis and the instruction to set it in a modern context. He then pitched the basic conceit -- without a script -- to the studio. He told them who was involved, and they asked how much it would cost. The studio said if they could make the picture for 25 million and have it ready for release in summer of 1984, they'd have a deal. At that point, with no script, they had exactly a year to complete the movie for release.

If you can get your hands on the book "Making Ghostbusters", its an incredibly detailed look into the production.
Click to expand...

thats a fact jack. as much as i hate saying it, because the wrong brother died, in the case of ghostbusters it was for the better. id heard rumors of what dan aykroyd originally was going with, and in usual dan aykroyd fashion it was terrible.
 
Hmmm - I actually have three Ackroyd drafts from 1979 and two from 1981 - The 79 draft takes place in the future and instead of proton packs the guys have "psycic boxes" with "wands" attached to them. The first from 81 is a more refined version of the same idea, only there's a team of religious guys who free the ghosts and are protesting "ghost rights" during the film. Then the final 1981 I got from "Dish" Derrick Hammond - a special effects artist who worked for magicam - this baby is 200pages and is pretty close to the movie, but no Stay Pufft.

See, I personally like all of ideas Ackroyd had in the previous drafts - I can see how they would work. You also have to remember, Producers love to say they stepped in and came up with everything. I need to read the making of book and compare.
 
Why does the name "Zack Snyder" sound like a character from a Nickelodeon kids show?

I must be getting old. I can't imagine a director named "Zack".
 
Judging by the rumors, insider news, theories, plots, subplots, storylines and everything else, I've come to one conclusion... this movie is going to suck. Well, that is if they try to do what everyone's thinking they're going to try to do... it just seems to be a mess at this point.

Keep it simple, keep it straightforward. Sure you can have plots and subplots - but this is a new, relaunch of Superman so (re) introduce this world to us - make it new, but recognizable. Give me big Blue, Metropolis, Lois, Jimmy and Perry and a villian.

I don't want Batman Begins or Dark Knight nor do I want Watchmen, I don't want Clark Kent wandering around thinking about becoming Superman (we basically just did that, it was called Smallville).

Give me flying, smiling, give me the oversized Boy Scout and let him save the world all over again for the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Passengers (Post-release)
2
Replies
38
Views
6,240
ghostryder
ghostryder
IronArmy87
Man Of Steel Costume build---VERY USEFUL HELP!
Replies
3
Views
6,801
Tripleasg
Tripleasg
Back
Top