Monday, October 4, 2010

Man Of Steal...

Up in the sky, it's a bird, a plane...


No, it's a sloooooooooow mo shot!



Wow, this was unexpected news...

Zach Snyder to Direct "Superman: The Man of Steel." Just when you think Darren Aronofsky was going to get it, someone else steals the job. And I'm not saddened by it, but I am surprised. A couple of years ago Snyder revealed that he was offered the directing gig on "Superman Returns" and he turned it down. So I thought that there was no way he'd accept this gig. I was wrong.

Deadline Hollywood
is reporting that Snyder has indeed accepted the offer to turn around the Granddaddy of all Super Heroes and make him a twenty-first century property. I personally think that this is a good move. Snyder has a definite eye for the camera and I don't think the major complaint everyone had about the last one will be a problem with this one (that it was boring and not enough action). I tend to agree and feel that Singer's film was an attempt to make a "chick-flick" out of Superman. With Nolan producing, Goyer writing and Snyder directing this could turn out to be an intense film. Now all they have to do is deliver it by the holidays of 2012. And this isn't all to think about when it comes to Marvel's competition.

Expect to hear more about this and other DC franchises in a few weeks at a major Warner Bros. announcement...

UPDATE:
The Hollywood Reporter says that the villain will be General Zod. Kneel before me!

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stop the presses! Honor Hunter was wrong about something!

George-El said...

Que the slow mo scene of Kal-El beating the sh*#%t out of Zod!

J.Lockwood said...

I can't understand the reasoning behind this decision. Nolan is such a sophisticated director that Aronofsky would seem like the obvious choice. Instead, he's gone for the all style no substance trickery of Snyder who's yet to prove he can do anything beyond slow motion fight sequences. Very disappointed about this.

Jor-El said...

Zak Snyder is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE choice! Watchmen was a bomb. Nolan should just direct it himself after he finishes Batman. This could be worse than Superman Returns.

Connie Moreno said...

Hmmmm....

Cory Gross said...

Nothing could be worse than Superman ReturnsEven if it IS just 90 minutes of Superman flying around and punching Zod in slow motion then fast motion then slow motion again, it will STILL be better than Superman Returns.

Anonymous said...

1. Old News

2. Honor Wrong? Oh well it happens, wouldn't be the first, wont be the last. It's the risk taken in this field.

3. Zack Snyder needs to go away. Haven't liked a single movies he's done so far.

Gee Whiz said...

1. Old news? It came out a little after noon and Honor's article came a couple hours later. That's not that bad.

Anonymous said...

Yes OLD news. It was up on IMDB over 24 hours before Honor posted it and AICN posted it a few hours later. Honor gets most of his "breaking news" from other sites. If he was really on the inside his "Bothans" would would have broke the news before the other "professional" sites did. Bluesky is amateur.

Polly Tichain said...

So let me get this straight, IMDB had it before Deadline Hollywood? Which said that this was their SCOOP?

As for Honor's "Bothans," they are mainly in regard it Disney news, so the comparison to when he mention something non-Disney is comparing Apples and oranges.

If you don't like his news or opinion then perhaps you should stick to IMDB.

Anonymous said...

Oh great so basically we are getting a Superman II Redux with General Zod. Weak. How about Darskseid or a different villain we haven't seen before?

Jor L. Luthor said...

If Nolan is involved it won't be a redux of Superman II. I trust him, no matter what he does.

I have a feeling having Darkseid as the first movie of a proposed trilogy would be anticlimactic. I mean, what do you follow him with?

I say make this Zod, the next one Brainiac and the final Darkseid. That way it's a build up, not a let down.

El Joro said...

If the first one sucks nobody is goingto care about a third one let alone a second if it even gets that far.

Anonymous said...

Hey "Gigglesock" if you are reading these comments (and I know you are) STOP being a condescending jerk.

Anyone who hates the Muppets is a heartless creep with no soul.

Kevin said...

Good lord, what is the movie community coming to? This is how low we've sunk? The worst director of today besides James Cameron to make one of the best superheroes of all time into a film? That's like electing the Lincoln exhibit at Disneyland as President of the United States. Luckily everyone here agrees that he's not the best director of choice. Personally I would've opted for JJ Abrams or Brad Bird, maybe even Terry Gilliam, which I heard someone else mention too. Everyone nowadays is suggesting Snyder and the guy from Mad Men to do Superman. People just don't get it, they don't care about quality movies anymore. I'm surprised at Nolan for this, I though he was better than that. If this is true, hopefully not, then he better be there 24/7 and cut out all the slow motion and bad taste.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't really THAT unexpected.. People have been throwing his name around as part of this project for quite some time.

SuperManMovie said...

The character Superman has lousy game play potential. Quite frankly, the character was created in a different era when considerations about story arcs and personality traits were completely different. The character is too overpowered for most situations and must rely either on supremely intelligent or supremely powerful adversaries to make it an interesting plot.

The character of General Zod has been turned into a punchline thanks to the mega-cheese portrayal by Terence Stamp. If this is a re-boot of the failed "Superman Returns," then they should either go for an original villain with Lex Luthor looming in the background or Lex Luthor himself as that's who most mainstream audiences associate Superman with (yes, comic book fans could probably name dozens of Superman villains but the mainstream populace knows only of Lex Luthor).

Then again, Superman was simply a blatant rip-off of other fictional characters that preceded him but Superman had very aggressive lawyers who would make Lex Luthor smile with pride. In fact, knowing the real histories of how most of these iconic superheroes were "created" sort of sours one in appreciating them.

Richard Donner said...

The problem with choosing a villain for Supes is the fact that most of the comic book villains are just that... comical. I really don't think a villain like Braniac would work (and yes I have read the Kevin Smith script for Superman Lives). Lex is just about the only "iconic" Superman villain you can depend on like the Joker is to Batman. Anyone else is melodramatic. The irony being that Lex is "just a man" whereas Supes has super powers but it's really a battle of wills between them that makes the dynamic chemistry work. The problem with Superman aside from being an anachronism from a time long since passed when Americana was defined by patriotism and the "American way" is the fact that he wears silly blue spandex with red undies and a big cheesy "S" emblemized across his chest like an overgrown boy scout. With all of his powers I want to know what he is conflicted about. the temptations to use his powers selfishly as he did at the end of Donner's Superman or to surrender them to become an ordinary man like he did in Superman II. When you have the power to play God how do you make those kinds of judgments to use your power for good or to lead? To me Superman has always been the most uninteresting super hero because he can do everything AND he's a do-gooder. As bad as Superman III was I was relieved to see Superman fighting against his darker half on a literal and metaphorical level. It was the only thing that made that film worth watching at all. The problem with Superman in the 21st century is that he just isn't believable for today's audiences. Nolan was able to take Batman and put him in the real world and make him believable but Superman just wouldn't exist in the Nolanverse. This is why the character needs a serious reinvention in order to make him work because Bryan Singer already proved that the traditional Superman will not fly with today's audiences. And comic book purists will cry blasphemy if the traditional iconic mythology isn't adhered to like benediction. This is why Superman has been a curse to revive on the big screen and why it takes a director who understands this which I don't think Zak Snyder is competent as a director to comprehend.

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming you never read any of the recent superman comics or graphic novel because brainiac is pretty cool

Tinman said...

Maybe we should give Zach a chance. Though his direction tends to be too pretentiously avant-garde for its own good, I see potential in him.

Not that I dislike it, but I wonder when the gritty reboot evolution will die out...

You WON'T believe a man can fly said...

Give Zak a chance? Um... no. I'm not wasting any chances on a director who will mishandle an iconic character the way Bryan Singer did on Superman Returns.