Sounds like Superman is going better all the time! [Archive]

mastronikolas

03-12-2003, 03:25 AM

You are going to stone me for saying this, but from what I've read, the script is solid, an ambitious reimagine of the Superman mythos. Rough around the edges, but full of potential.

BUT, the execution so far is terrible.

Peters killed the Batman franchise and appears to have not learned anything from that slaying of a golden egg laying goose.

After Red Dragon, I know that Ratner has absolutely no knack for visual flair, no distinct style. These are necessary ingredients for this movie to work. He is competent, but I doubt he has the vision to make an epic.

The casting process should enter the Special Olympics. I understand trying to get a fairly big name, such as Hartnett, on board. But Aston what's-his-name? In what mirror universe is he a star? If they can't get someone like Jude Law, they should look for an unknown, find the new Hugh Jackman.

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-12-2003, 03:35 AM

Oh man. That stupid bastard is fucking around again. I just read something on SuperheroHype that claimed to have the inside track on the COSTUME. Claiming that there was NO CAPE...yet. If any of you heard Kevin Smith's Superman experience, that gay wad Peters wanted to get rid of the costume. This is clearly his doing. NO CAPE! Are they mad!!!! Superman is all about the Cape. Plus they are saying that the costume is a darker blue which doesn't really make that big a deal, unless the fag Peters makes it Purple. And this guy says that there is no YELLOW in the Symbol but Black. If anyone read any Superman comic after OUR WORLDS AT WAR you'll see that he changed it to Black for a while as a kind of memorial for those that died, but he changed it back. SO STOP SCREWING WITH IT WARNER BROTHERS!!!!!! Damn. I mean come on. Spider-man pretty much stuck completely to the comic for his costume, except for the 3d webbing, though the comic is 2d so maybe his webbing is more 3d on the costume. People went nuts about all the other changes. People hated Power Ranger Goblin and fetish gear X-men and Daredevil. I'm not saying I had anything against those costume, but many people did and for that fact alone they hated the movie. So, do yourselfs a favor and don't f with a classic costume like that. Don't put nipples on it. or a huge code piece cuz Peters has dreams about sucking Superman off. Just give us Superman, and don't put some idiot like Ashton Kutcher or Jerry O'Connel is the suit.
When everyone you talk too, from the man who once played Supes, to other Directors, tell you to go with an relatively unknown DO IT!!!!!!!!!! It worked for Superman in every other film incarnation (even Dean Cain in some ways), it worked for Wolverine. Get some big name for the villain if you want, just don't give him top billing. That is frickin lame. :mad:

DVtS

03-12-2003, 05:07 AM

People went nuts about all the other changes. People hated Power Ranger Goblin and fetish gear X-men and Daredevil. I'm not saying I had anything against those costume, but many people did and for that fact alone they hated the movie.

Um, but the thing is, nobody hated those costumes (with the possible exception of the Green Goblin one, which severely hurt a scene or two) AFTER SEEING THE FILM. After viewing them, people had some minor complaints with X-Men, some major complaints with Daredevil, but it wasn't about the fucking costumes, I'll tell you that.

Bitching about changing a cape or a color within a superhero's logo? Could anything be more petty? Especially with this one, where you have loads of LEGITIMATE complaints to making, to make such retarded ones is offputting.

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-12-2003, 05:15 AM

DVtS must really be Jon Peters. I got an idea, let's have Superman fly around in a frilly pink dress!!! huh!? how about that? fucking dick saying that SUPERMANs costume doesn't matter. It's Superman for fucks sake. And most people even after seeing those movies always come around complaining about the costumes, so don't tell me that everyone did a 180 after they saw it.
I liked the X-men costumes, and the Daredevil costumes (save for the collar part that never attached to the mask which was pretty gay), but Superman is a much different fucking story. A character that's been an American Icon for 65 years doesn't need a change or an update or anything like that. I think DC figured that out with the Electro Blue Superman fiasco.
Next thing we know there will be giant robot spiders and polar bears and Jimmy Olsen going down on Perry White in the Daily Planet washroom. :mad:

mastronikolas

03-12-2003, 05:28 AM

Yeah, right.

And a midget prancing around in yellow tights and a mask is a good idea.

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-12-2003, 05:47 AM

You calling Wolverine a midget? Or are you talking about those weird Mexican wrestlers? cuz those guys are always prancing around and people actually go watch them. crazy mexicans. And like I said I liked the X-Men costumes. They changed them in the comics to look like the movie ones after all. It makes more sense. Secret team running around in flamboyant costumes? Right.

Eurytus

03-12-2003, 07:35 AM

GeneralZodOfKrypton:
Oh man. That stupid bastard is fucking around again. I just read something on SuperheroHype that claimed to have the inside track on the COSTUME. Claiming that there was NO CAPE...yet. If any of you heard Kevin Smith's Superman experience, that gay wad Peters wanted to get rid of the costume. This is clearly his doing. NO CAPE! Are they mad!!!! Superman is all about the Cape. :With Kutcher lined up perhaps they wanted to include Sean William Scot (or whatever his name is) and call it "Dude, where's my Cape".

That would just about top it off.

Saucy

03-12-2003, 01:47 PM

I suppose it stands to reason that a villain like Zod would be so strangely obsessed with homosexuality.

And the black-and-red chest emblem looked great in "Kingdom Come." Although, yes, it would be kind of missing the point, if this is an origin story, to have the emblem start out black.

krankyboy

03-12-2003, 02:13 PM

Heh ... personally, I get a sick thrill out of watching Warner Brothers grope around madly for anything that might make this film a hit. I'd like to see the costume stay traditional in terms of the red "S" on the yellow background, but I think it's a safe bet that nothing about this Jon Peters/Alan Horn/Jeff Robinov monstrosity is going to be traditional in the slightest.

I'm waiting for the next report where we hear that Superman will be getting a supercar and the main villain will be fighting polar bears.

All hail, Jon Peters.

Donald Wiskerando

03-12-2003, 02:15 PM

This Zod has stolen the world's supply of exclamation points. Back to the Phantom Zone with him.

_New__Order_

03-12-2003, 02:22 PM

i still say HUGH GRANT as super man, come one people, get on that trolley!!!...

at any rate, a cinemaically introduced new costume? no, that's unheard of!!! anyways, the SPACE GHOST comment by o'connel sounded very interesting, i'd rather see that than this already doomed piece of crap with wings...

J Peterson

03-12-2003, 04:48 PM

I wonder how much longer this is going to go on before Warner Bros. finally pulls the plug on this thing. They've paid Ratner because they thought he could atleast attract some names, but so far, no dice. Jon Peters is set on making this movie HIS way, and with a track record like his and the fact that the budget has already been estimated at north of 170 mil, someone at the WB is gonna have to wake up and realize that this is not only going to be a disaster, but could end up killing the franchise to the point that it would be another 20 years or so before anyone could try to do it right.

krankyboy

03-12-2003, 08:30 PM

If the studio pulled the plug now, I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next stockholders meeting at Time Warner.

But the truth is, I think the studio has to get this "Superman" film made. Comic book super-heroes are all the rage, and Warner executives are also being made to look like a bevy of fools in the face of Marvel's successes. Even if Ratner departs (and I'll be surprised if he does), Alan Horn and his group of yes-men have to get the movie into the pipeline. Otherwise, it will make them look even worse than when Josh Hartnett -- who is nothing more than a heartthrob actor of the moment
(but who also supposedly got tossed a 45 million multi-film deal for three Superman movies by salivating execs) -- flirted with them and then, at crunch time, turned them down.

They've supposedly already got a production deal with Brendan Fraser and liked his screen test (according to the gossip mill). Matthew Bomer looked the best of the three and Ratner likes him, according to Bomer's manager (which also sounds like managerial spin). So there might be some conflict where that's concerned. Who knows.

The point is ... they pulled the plug on Tim Burton's version of "Superman" and looked like idiots in the process for wasting money. I don't think the boys and girls at Warners are so stupid that they want to go through that again.

I wouldn't mind them pulling the plug, but it's like a freight train which is gaining speed and might end up crashing into a frightful heap -- the combination of Jon Petsers, idiot extraordinaire, Alan Horn, Brett Ratner (who seems to be the most sensible guy of the bunch), and J.J. Abrams with his "Superman as Star Wars" script is a recipe for disaster. But I'm not sure anyone can stop it at this point. There's just too much money at stake, too many egos, too much fear ...

J Peterson

03-12-2003, 08:44 PM

It's nice to dream. I seriously think this site would crash from the celebration on this board if the project was killed. I still think its possible that they may yet still kill it though. I still think someone at the WB has to realize that it would be better to eat the loss so far and appear incompetent, than to suck down an incredibly huge loss and be confirmed to be incompetent. But that's just me.

JARO BORANO

03-12-2003, 08:44 PM

<img src="http://www.empireonline.co.uk/img/news/joconnell.jpg" alt="" />

this Kangaroo Jack sliding mothafuka!?!?!

Ah - who fucking cares

it's beyond our control

Dave Davis

03-14-2003, 10:08 AM

Even though I'm sure this movie will be a train wreck of colossal proportions, this Matthew Bomer kid sure as hell looks like Superman to me...

<a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14721" target="_blank">http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14721</a>

Gruber

03-14-2003, 10:10 AM

He looks so nondescript.

S.R. Hadden

03-14-2003, 11:24 AM

I'l all for Bomer.

Please, please, please, don't let Brendan Fraser get this part. Go to the imdb and check his age. Watch Dudley Do-Right. Go, even watch the Quiet American. He's not Superman.

Terrell

03-14-2003, 12:16 PM

THis film has gone through so much chaos that I don't think there's a chance in hell it will be worth a crap.

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-14-2003, 02:43 PM

I agree with you that Brendan is to old for this part seeing as how it will take 10 years to finish the trilogy. If they had made this movie like 7 years ago he would have been a good choice.
And Quiet American showed how great he would be. He played a dual character in that. A guy that wore the face of a mild manered guy, and then it turned out he was a CIA agent. He was a bit out of shape though. I think he could pull both Clark Kent and Superman off quite well.
I don't know this Bomer guy so I don't know if he has any talent. I thought that Mutant-X guy looked just like Superman from the pictures I saw posted on this site, but then I saw an episode of Mutant-X...

The Mayhem Revolutions

03-14-2003, 03:10 PM

I would rather see Chris Reeves play the part, wheelchair and all, than Brendon Fraser.

krankyboy

03-14-2003, 03:27 PM

Hiring Matthew Bomer for Superman/Clark Kent could be the first intelligent step by Warner Bros. in this entire nightmarish process.

However, I'm sure they're more inclined to pick Fraser at this point. He's got the hit movies, the semi-recognizable name, and (I think) a production deal with the studio. What's sad is that he would have been perfect six or seven years ago.

I really hope they go with Bomer. God knows, he looks great and will keep the costs down.

walter-konkrete

03-14-2003, 04:00 PM

I was anti-fraser for a long time, but go watch The Quiet American he IS Clark Kent...

Matt Goldberg

03-14-2003, 04:09 PM

While I'd prefer if WB went with the unknown, Bomer has the creepiest eyes.

The Mayhem Revolutions

03-14-2003, 04:42 PM

I'm not anti-Fraser, but he doesn't have the look or the right personality to play Supes.

krankyboy

03-14-2003, 05:24 PM

Matt Goldberg:
While I'd prefer if WB went with the unknown, Bomer has the creepiest eyes.I think he's got terrific eyes. Very piercing and other-worldly.

NathanW

03-14-2003, 06:25 PM

Over at Darkhorizons Selma Blair declared she was going to fight tooth and nail for the role of lois lane. At they'll get at least one thing right IF she gets it.

JG-The Song of my Jailer*

03-14-2003, 09:42 PM

Mayhem:
I'm not anti-Fraser, but he doesn't have the look or the right personality to play Supes.He has absolutely the look and the personality. As far as any name actor goes he is the runaway best choice.

krankyboy

03-15-2003, 07:32 PM

Dragon Ma:
Over at Darkhorizons Selma Blair declared she was going to fight tooth and nail for the role of lois lane. At they'll get at least one thing right IF she gets it.Hmmmm ... I don't know. Every time I see her doing an interview or performing in a film, she always gives me the impression that her brain is on auto-pilot.

The Mayhem Revolutions

03-15-2003, 07:51 PM

JG-The Song of my Jailer*:
Mayhem:
I'm not anti-Fraser, but he doesn't have the look or the right personality to play Supes.He has absolutely the look and the personality. As far as any name actor goes he is the runaway best choice.Have you ever read a Superman comic?

DVtS

03-15-2003, 08:15 PM

The Bomer guy looks perfect for the part. No clue on his talents, but come on...this isn't a really challenging or complex role once you've got the look right.

As for Brendan Fraser, he's the right size, but the face and the voice are no good for the part.

Plus, we all know how the guy is...could you watch him play Superman and take it seriously? The same goes for Jerry O'Connell. I'd have a tough time taking them seriously in the part, because they'd have a tough time taking the part seriously.

turk128

03-16-2003, 02:24 AM

Here's a great Superman-ish pic of Bomer from the <a href="http://www.guidinglightstars.com/actors/bomer.html" target="_blank">Guiding Lights</a> site:
<img src="http://www.guidinglightstars.com/actors/images/pic_bomer.jpg" alt="" />

A bit too pretty but looks like a more mature Tom Welling.

krankyboy

03-17-2003, 01:34 AM

Well, according to the Superman Cinema website, the filmmakers have chosen Matthew Bomer for the role of Superman/Clark Kent. Now it's basically up to the execs at Warners to either give the casting a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Supposedly, Warners is much keener or Fraser for the role. But Bomer being cast would be a huge ray of good news for the movie, just based on his looks alone.

Then again, until something definitive actually appears in one of the trades, this is just heresay (which I've gone and repeated).

Dave Davis

03-17-2003, 10:08 AM

This morning's trades say Ratner's option to direct has expired.

If Michael Bay steps in, I will be eternally amused.

UberNeuman

03-17-2003, 05:24 PM

If Ratner is out, then I'll be happy...

Still think McG would be a great choice to helm the project...

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-17-2003, 05:43 PM

All this crap about Michael Bay has already been denied so many times. If it ever came to be true, that Michael Bay, one of the devil's many minions, was to direct Superman, the world will feel Zod's wrath. He can go back and suck off his buddy Jerry "dumbfuck" Bruckheimer and go back to the feiry underworld he came from. I never want to see a Superman poster that says from the makers of Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. If I do, it will burn.

flyarz

03-17-2003, 06:27 PM

I'd rather see a Michael Bay Superman than a BRett Ratner Superman. The former would be much more amusing.

Jacob Singer

03-17-2003, 06:33 PM

I can't believe anyone even cares about this stupid project anymore.

Patrick Sauriol

03-17-2003, 07:18 PM

Hey, psst!

As a wise green Jedi Master once said, <a href="http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=38017" target="_blank">"There is another."</a>

Patrick Sauriol

03-17-2003, 07:19 PM

Saucy

03-17-2003, 07:25 PM

Every day that goes by without any headway being made on this film only increases my chances of being there opening night to see the result. The bigger the pileup, the better the wreck.

I expect, and demand, things like lead actors pulling out halfway through filming, several stuntpeople dying, local ecosystems irrevocably ruined, and last-minute script rewrites that have Mr. Mxyzptlk featured as the main villain.

krankyboy

03-17-2003, 08:55 PM

Henry Cavill, eh?

Well, he's extremely handsome although quite young for the role. But who knows ... this entire process on "Superman" is playing out like a bad episode of "Dynasty" (think of a Linda Evans-Joan Collins catfight -- and insert Jon Peters and Brett Ratner). I wish they'd just choose Bomer and be done with it.

As for Ratner leaving the movie ... not terribly likely, especially since there's a lot at stake for everyone involved as far as the project moving forward. But it's not like there haven't been a few surprises on this project thus far (and most of them have been bad). Maybe Ratner will leave, and Raja Gosnell will swoop in to save the day as Superman fans collectively toss their cookies.

Bozz

03-18-2003, 01:39 AM

Especially in <a href="http://www.cinescape.com/multimedia/Master_Site/People/Master_SitePeople285913.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> shot Henry Cavill looks great for Supes. IMDB lists his height as 6'1". Beef the guy up and we just may have a winner.

Bozz

03-18-2003, 01:48 AM

Also, check out these shots of Cavill: <a href="http://www.intensevibe.com/henry/photos/captures/comc/058.jpg" target="_blank">1</a> <a href="http://www.intensevibe.com/henry/photos/premieres/premiere001.jpg" target="_blank">2</a> and <a href="http://www.intensevibe.com/henry/photos/moviestills/castle002.jpg" target="_blank">3</a>. Can anyone vouch for his acting skills?

Sorry for the double post but this seems to be the first positive bit of info leaked about the film.

krankyboy

03-18-2003, 02:42 AM

Well, it's official. Brendan Fraser and Matthew Bomer are both out of contention for the Clark Kent/Superman role. It's astounding how the names keep dropping from the casting list like flies. So much for Superman Cinema's source ...

Right now, Cavill is the only name that I've seen mentioned for the part (and he does look great). But at this rate, he'll be gone by next week.

Matt Goldberg

03-18-2003, 02:46 AM

It looks like the project is moving closer and closer back to square one, and with all the shit surrounding the project this far, that may not be a bad thing.

Fazer

03-18-2003, 05:42 AM

Well, I am glad fraser and Bomer are out of contention. Neither of them seemed right for it. I am very glad Ratner is most likely out. I think its about time Joel Silver stepped in and gave the superman project a bullet time kick in the ass. He can't seem to do any wrong right now. The Matrix is a WB property, as is Supes, so I would guess he would be the man to turn to.

I know harry at AICN mentioned Micahel Bay being available too. Please god no. michael bay would be worse than ratner. the only decent movie he made was the rock...every movie to follow was sooooo overly sappy and idiotic. Give this movie to Joel and the Wachowskis. That would be interesting. Let them rap up Matrix 3, and then what do they have to do? Three movies is a life work for some. Give supes to the Wachowskis, I think they would respect the material and possibly have that "new take" Warner is looking for, without alienating every superman fan ever i.e. Abrams script.

Dave Davis

03-18-2003, 07:57 AM

I suppose it makes sense -- if Ratner goes, the actors he wanted get tossed with him, because whoever steps in (assuming Ratner is not kept on, of course) will want their choice in the role.

Frankly, I'm amazed I still care at all at this point. But I suppose like Saucy Jack said, it's really more out of morbid "rubbernecker" curiosity...

The Mayhem Revolutions

03-18-2003, 08:39 AM

This project is now officially in the toilet. Whatever emerges will be nothing but shit.

S.R. Hadden

03-18-2003, 03:34 PM

Say what you will about his other work...Michael IS the man for Superman.

Let's honestly take a look at Bay's previous body of work. His visual flair is apparent, using filters like nobody's business. His strongest work, yes, is The Rock, but even in the disasters he's helmed, you can't help but wish he would attach himself to something of substance.

Pearl Harbor, of course, was a serious attempt at this. And you know what? I blame Randall Wallace and Randall Wallace alone for that. The script was overwrought, overemotional, and overlong - a style that doesn't play well with Bay's visual dramatics.

Bay, in almost all of his films, has inserted this pseudo-Norman Rockwell feel: The scene in Armageddon with the children running past an old billboard, dust filter turned up all the way. The feel of the locations in The Rock. Virtually every non-action scene in Pearl Harbor.

Now, Warner Bros. is trying to reinvent Superman. Trust me, there's no bigger fan than me, and I'm all for the myth to be tossed around. It's been done before, and Superman has survived BECAUSE of his changes, and not inspite of them. It is his ability to adapt to the changing world while maintaining the very core that made him "Superman" that has kept him going these long decades. JJ Abrams and the Warner stooges have come up with a couple of neat ideas, and a couple of bad ones (many that I hear are going by the wayside). It is clear to me that they are going for a very modern story - a film unprecedented in scope, a grandiose Superhero epic. The anti-Spider-Man. This is not a personal story like Peter Parkers, nor is it a telling of a myth like Donner's 1978 vision. This is an attempt at a non-retro Star Wars.

What do I think? Neat idea. But Star Wars ain't Superman unless you, on a purely visual level, remind us in every frame that no matter what you are seeing - this IS Superman. Michael Bay's cinematic Americana will do that. Because you know what? Superman is overwrought. In virtually no other film can you have a man in tights holding an American flag atop the White House and not be cynical. That's what Superman is. He, like Michael Bay, is completely over the top.

Now, some will remember me defending Ratner. My points were at large misinterpreted. I never said that he was a good director. God, I definitely realize that he's a mediocre filmmaker at best. I wish someone like Jonathan Demme, Ridley Scott, or wow - David Fincher would have tackled Ted Tally's Red Dragon adaptation. Ratner directed it like an episode of Friends, and we got a mediocre film. Behold the power of the director. My singular defense of him was this: he wouldn't fuck it up. He would tread the line, make no rash decisions. He would shoot it completely standard, and honestly, with $200 mil of Warner Bros. cash behind him, there really wouldn't be any mistakes. There'd be far too many actual filmmakers on hand to help him with his framing. I wouldn't want someone like Sam Raimi doing Superman. Why? He's got too much of a voice, and honestly, his risks don't always pay off. My god I respect Raimi and some of the crazy shit he pulls, but when it comes to Superman, I don't want anyone making giant leapas in invention unless they know precisely what they're doing. Michael Bay is a confident director. He doesn't stand out on a limb, he plants another goddamn tree.

So good-bye Ratner, and Hello Bay. If this is all true, I really couldn't be happier. Bay is the best possible director for this version of Superman, and if the new draft is as good as we hear, we're going to get one helluva film. Just watch.

Of course, if you want to tell a myth, do it the way the 1978 version did it - get Dick Donner back and do it that way. But reinvention is a unreliable practice at best, and I will give a warm welcome to a competent reimagination.

S.R. Hadden

03-18-2003, 07:45 PM

Despite the report on the reliable "Hollywood Repoter," the slightly-less reputable <a href="http://www.supermancinema.net" target="_blank">Superman Cinema</a> reports that Matthew Bomer is a lock for the part.

Is Ratner gone? Will this guy be cast?

krankyboy

03-19-2003, 08:22 PM

S.R. Hadden:
Pearl Harbor, of course, was a serious attempt at this. And you know what? I blame Randall Wallace and Randall Wallace alone for that. The script was overwrought, overemotional, and overlong - a style that doesn't play well with Bay's visual dramatics. So Randall Wallace, the screenwriter (who may have been re-written several times over by uncredited hands ... and which wouldn't be surprising considering how often this is done in the film industry) is to blame for "Pearl Harbor" being an overwrought and overlong movie? That's funny ... last time I checked, it was "A Michael Bay Film." (nudge, nudge ... wink, wink)

Seriously, all kidding aside, I tried watching five minutes of "Armageddon" last night, and Bay's visual flair always gives me a migraine.

I did see that story on Superman Cinema as well -- and there's news today on Superhero Hype from the TV Guide website. Bomer is leaving "Guiding Light" once his contract expires in the fall (although the network is trying to get it renewed by promising him that he can leave to do "Superman" if he gets the part). All signs point to him being free to take the role of Clark Kent/Superman ... but this completely conflicts with the Hollywood Reporter story. Who knows. (and some would say ... who cares anymore?)

And what do people think of Ratner saying on MTV that he wants Anthony Hopkins for Lex Luthor and Ralph Fiennes (sp) for Jor-El?

NathanW

03-20-2003, 03:00 AM

Ratner is out according to AICN. He held a rally outside GM and let everybody know his plans for the future(RH 3)

<a href="http://www.aint-it-cool.com/display.cgi?id=14771" target="_blank">Ratner explains all</a>

Rath/Brendan

03-20-2003, 03:07 AM

Wait a second?

Walken was going to be Perry White?

WALKEN?

[Edit: Or was Harry making a funny?]

krankyboy

03-20-2003, 03:39 AM

So the truth comes to light. Ratner wanted Matthew Bomer for Superman. Warners did not (oh, what a surprise we have there) and is still clinging to the delusion of getting a big star for the role. Oh yes, and another huge surprise ... Jon Peters is still a prick. I guess the reported meltdown between him and Ratner should have been the writing on the wall.

And yet, Warners is sticking with Peters. It's amazing how hideously brainless a group of former agents (ICM's Jeff Robinov) and egotistical execs (Alan Horn) can be when they're working in tandem.

I also guess if we ever wondered what it would have been like for Warners to be running things during the casting of "Superman - The Movie" in 1978, we now know. Not that the Salkinds were much better, but still ... Alan Horn, Jeff Robinov, and Jon Peters have effectively formed an unholy trio and made their project one of the biggest laughing stocks of the town in no time.

For some reason, I feel bad for Ratner right now. He actually sounded like the most sensible guy surrounded by a bunch of idiots (despite the idea of casting Walken as Perry White). Bomer looked right for the role, anyway.

This is all simply amazing.

S.R. Hadden

03-20-2003, 03:43 AM

No, he probably did want Walken for Perry White. Steve Martin I hear is in talks...

Anyways, here's rooting for Bay.

Rath/Brendan

03-20-2003, 03:49 AM

S.R. Hadden:
No, he probably did want Walken for Perry White. Steve Martin I hear is in talks...Y'know, Martin I could see.

mecha superior

03-20-2003, 04:33 AM

Harry's insinuating his *Ratner exits/enter Bay* story (posted January 15th) was completely true. These last 2 months were just the WB and Ratboy making the transition, on their own time. Either that or they refused to announce Ratner's exit, until they had a definite contract with Bay (or someone else).

Harry's original <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14202" target="_blank">scoop</a>.

After the WB's insistent denial, <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14205" target="_blank">update</a>.

Starting to add up. All we're missing is Bay (or McG) being announced as the new director.

These possible extreme acts of subterfuge (which must include the Jon Peters/Ratner gossip) would really portray the WB as the neurotic ass monkeys, many thought them to be. They must scramble during every one of these leaks.

I'll laugh if Bay get's the gig.

Johnny Daywalker

03-20-2003, 04:51 AM

I will too. I don't understand why the WB insists on hiring these kind of directors. Maybe they should look to Universal and their terrific move of hiring Ang Lee as director of Hulk?

Rath/Brendan

03-20-2003, 05:04 AM

mecha superior:
After the WB's insistent denial, <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14205" target="_blank">update</a>. That article mentions Ratner showing up at NYU to show some of his films last term.

As long as I've been here, I haven't heard anything about this. It would have been covered in the paper--the crowds would have been fairly large.

The only Ratner event was "Red Dragon," and he didn't even show for that.

Just my two cents.

Dave Davis

03-20-2003, 07:52 AM

mecha superior:

These possible extreme acts of subterfuge (which must include the Jon Peters/Ratner gossip) would really portray the WB as the neurotic ass monkeys, many thought them to be. They must scramble during every one of these leaks. Much like the rumor back in December that Michael Gambon would take over for Richard Harris as Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies. Immediately DENIED officially by Warners. Some two months later, the official announcement of his casting.

Firehose!!

mastronikolas

03-20-2003, 08:54 AM

Pearl Harbor was very good as an action movie/ big spectacle.

What doomed the movie was the marketing, the cynical attempt to sell it as an important, oscar calibre movie and the attempt to convince you that it's your patriotic duty to watch it. Plus the stupid, overblown carrier premiere.

Without all that baggage, it's a surprisingly solid and well made film.

However, Bay is guilty of the crime against humanity that is Armageddon. But in any case, he is far more competent than Ratner.

Gandalf´s Father

03-20-2003, 12:02 PM

mastronikolas says war is bad:
Pearl Harbor was very good as an action movie/ big spectacle.

What doomed the movie was the marketing, the cynical attempt to sell it as an important, oscar calibre movie and the attempt to convince you that it's your patriotic duty to watch it. Plus the stupid, overblown carrier premiere.

Without all that baggage, it's a surprisingly solid and well made film.
Pearl Harbor is shit. One of of the worst movies of the decade. Even the attack wasn´t very exciting because you couldn´t care less about the characters. And the dialogue is soo terrible I feel the pain every time I think about Pearl Harbor. It is not a well made film.

Rawhead Rotten

03-20-2003, 01:48 PM

Ratner's a fuckin' pussy.

Ahem, let me re-phrase that...a mama's boy and a fuckin' pussy.

Follow through with a project, man. Things aren't working out so you back out? Boo-hoo.

Nelson

03-20-2003, 01:55 PM

S.R. Hadden:

His visual flair is apparent, using filters like nobody's business.John Schwartzman, Bay's friend and DP, has mentioned that Bay does not use filters. He actually lights the sets to give them their appearance.

btw, from <a href="http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=VR1117882844&categoryid=13&cs=1" target="_blank">Variety.com</a>:

Ratner rushes out of 'Superman'

Difficulty of casting lead role contributes to decision

By DANA HARRIS, CATHY DUNKLEY

Brett Ratner will no longer direct "Superman" for Warner Bros. Pictures and sister company New Line Cinema couldn't be happier.
That's because Ratner had previously agreed to make "Rush Hour 3" as his next picture -- and New Line has just hired "Bad Company" scribe Jason Richman to write the script.

In order to make his "Superman" deal last September, Ratner asked New Line if he could be released from their prior agreement that "Rush Hour 3" would be his next project. New Line gave its blessing, but with the understanding that the Chris Tucker-Jackie Chan action-comedy would follow thereafter.

New Line hopes to have a first draft from Richman in eight weeks.

As of Wednesday afternoon, according to his CAA reps, Ratner was still attached to "Superman." Later that day, Ratner's camp changed its tune, scrambling to release a statement late that evening.

Stated Ratner, "I have chosen to withdraw as director of 'Superman.' The difficulty of casting the role of Superman has contributed to my decision. I appreciate the efforts of Warner Bros. and the entire production team during this process."

Warners production president Jeff Robinov responded with his own statement: "We have tremendous regard for Brett's creativity and passion for this project and we understand that this was a very tough choice for him. We are disappointed but wish him the best in his future pursuits."

So while New Line celebrated the prodigal son's return, Warners is left with neither director nor superhero. However, a Warners spokeswoman said the studio had every intention of moving forward with "Superman." The final straw for Ratner seems to have been the unwillingness of Warners execs to approve Ratner's choice as the Man of Steel, soap star Matthew Bomer. Among the actors who tested for the role were Brendan Fraser, Paul Walker and Josh Hartnett.

Hartnett passed, Walker took himself out of the mix and the race was between Bomer and Fraser as of late last week.

Studio also became uncomfortable with Ratner's collaborative decision- making style that sought to please everyone but ultimately didn't please Warners. Nor were relations aided by the very public tension between Ratner and "Superman" producer Jon Peters.

The "Superman" budget also had escalated to $225 million, even with the hiring of a second line producer to bring the budget down to $200 million.

Ratner's transition to "Rush Hour 3" isn't entirely seamless. While the director has already made his deal for the second sequel, the same can't be said for Tucker and Chan. New Line wants the stars to return, but it's conceivable the franchise could move forward without them, if the studio couldn't meet their pay demands.

The first two "Rush Hour" installments earned a combined $576 million at the global B.O.

Tucker hasn't been on the bigscreen since the release of "Rush Hour 2" in August 2001, but he's been shooting footage for "Mr. President," a mockumentary about an African-American president.

Chan is shooting "Around the World in 80 Days" for Walden Media and Summit Entertainment and was most recently seen in "Shanghai Knights." His next release is "The Medallion" (aka "Highbinders") for Columbia Pictures Oct. 17.

Repped by ICM and managed by the Bauer Co., Richman recently wrote a draft of Paramount Pictures' "Beverly Hills Cop 4."

(Michael Fleming and Dave McNary contributed to this report.)

krankyboy

03-20-2003, 04:26 PM

RRotten:
Ratner's a fuckin' pussy.

Ahem, let me re-phrase that...a mama's boy and a fuckin' pussy. Most definitely, and I haven't really cared for the movies that he's helped bring into the world. The man has no visual flair, and no imagination or vision that might make his direction even halfway interesting.

But I don't blame him either for walking. I mean, imagine it ... you've just gone through the hell of trying to cast a "Superman" movie with the WB executives and Jon Peters breathing down your neck -- and that has to be something akin to journeying into Dante's Inferno -- before coming up with a choice for Superman that you feel passionate about, and the suits veto your decision. Maybe they just want an obedient little lap dog to direct their movie -- but I respect Ratner for not simply rolling over to their wishes (and as much as I dislike the Rat, I hate Jon Peters far more).

Maybe this is the unanswerable question, but if the Salkinds had vetoed Richard Donner's choice of Christopher Reeve in the 1978 film because THEY were dead set on Bruce Jenner or Robert Redford (two of the choices that the producers wanted for Superman) ... how would Donner have responded? Do you just try to grin and bear it? Walk away? Realize that you just don't have any power and bow down to the will of the cretins in charge?

Christ, I don't know ... perhaps this was just a secret plan by the WB to get Michael Bay and Josh Hartnett after all. Or perhaps it's just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

JARO BORANO

03-20-2003, 04:40 PM

good riddance to ratner

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-20-2003, 04:55 PM

Well, see yah in 5 or 6 years, the next time WB tries and once again fails to make a Superman movie. Or maybe it's third times a charm.

S.R. Hadden

03-20-2003, 06:46 PM

Honestly, I have the utmost faith that this project will see the screen sometime in 2005.

"Superman Lives," the earlier Peters-driven effort failed for similar reasons (when Burton departed), but that was then, and this is now. That project wasn't so much of a Warner Bros. project as it was a Peters Productions project: WB has far too much stake in it to back off now.

Additionally, whereas "Superman Lives" died right around the time "Batman & Robin" limped to the screen, this one comes in the wake of Spider-Man. There's definite money to be made here, and the execs can smell it like a wolf smells blood.

And with the current situation worldwide, I can just imagine the parallels that the psych/law majors running the show over there are drawing between Superman and Patriotism.

It's going to happen, and it's going to happen soon. I suspect a director announcement sometime next week.

Rath/Brendan

03-20-2003, 07:58 PM

NOTE TO STAR CHAMBER: Not a personal attack against a Chewer, unless bigdog represnts the WB.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that Superman represents patriotism is a fucking retard.

Bizarro Zod Loves You All

03-20-2003, 08:18 PM

No Director. No Stars. And WB lied. It's still basically that same piece of shit script that J.J. Abrams wrote with Krypton not exploding and Luthor being an alien (or controlled by an alien in the revision). Ty-Zor has to be the crappiest name ever. If they are restarting everything, they should atleast have it be Zod. Like General Zod could be the big military guy on Krypton, and he sends his son to find Kal-el. Son of Zod. Much better than fucking Ty-Zor. Doesn't matter though because this movie looks like it will never be made, just like the Burton/Smith/Cage failure of the 90s. There is a failure for every decade apparently since the first movie. III and IV in the 80s. Now this one in the 21st century. Sad that they can't get it together, since even if the movie was a piece of shit it would still make lots of bank for those idiots at WB. Of course I would rather have no Superman movie than a Batman And Robin-like Superman movie.

Saucy

03-20-2003, 08:34 PM

S.R. Hadden:
I suspect a director announcement sometime next week.And the week after that.

RathBandu:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that Superman represents patriotism is a fucking retard.You're calling Shuster and Seigel "fucking retards"? You've never heard the phrase "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"? You've never read any WWII-era Superman comics? You've never seen the promotional photos of Christopher Reeve as Superman, standing in front of an American flag? What on earth are you talking about?

mustofa

03-20-2003, 08:37 PM

im not sure what to make of any of this....but i am glad that ratner is gone....who thought this guy had the talent or the ability to make this movie i dont know. you dont give superman to a hack that has made in total..what....like two movies (i assume RH1 and 2 cant be all that much different)

but i dont know...i havnt seen the rush hour movies, not my cup of tea, and i did have to sit through red dragon. a very poorly directed movie. this dude has no craft or style. before i heard about him doing superman i thought he was a hack, and aparently he will continue to be one with rush hour three.

ratner should take tucker and chan and totally redo shot for shot shanghi nights just to fuck with people, then i would maybe have some respect for him

J Peterson

03-20-2003, 08:40 PM

You know, if you would have told me Ratner was off of Superman 3 months ago, I would have breathed a sigh of relief, but now, with all the Michael Bay-ing going on in the rumor mill, the dark cloud of realization has finally hit. It makes no difference, WB is still going to put out their Ritalin Generation, Hyper Budget, corporate version of the Man of Steel, come hell or whatever. They'll go with Bay, or someone equally "competent", make the movie stylistically slicker than a hockey rink, crank in a "hip" soundtrack, focus group the shit out of it, and still miss the entire point of the character. My hat's off the you Jon Peters and the WB, it takes a lot of balls to pretty much do the equivilant of driving off of a cliff after the signs have been warning you for the last 50 miles, just to show that you know more than the people who put up the signs in the first place. So thank you in advance for giving us a Superman man film that will sell to the masses like a soda commerical and then rot in DVD bargin bins a few years later alongside other forgetable summer movies, because this thing is going to be forgetable with a capital "F" and that the biggest crime you can commit against an American Icon.

...sorry, I had to get that out of my system.

The Copy Guy

03-20-2003, 08:41 PM

I'm so sick of hearing all of this Superman shit. I don't even care anymore. Just get a monkey,paint an "S' on it's chest, and have it running around town biting people;hence infecting them with ebola virus.

Now that's something I'd pay to see. :mad:

MoriartyAICN

03-20-2003, 09:18 PM

Fazer:
Give supes to the Wachowskis, I think they would respect the material and possibly have that "new take" Warner is looking for, without alienating every superman fan ever i.e. Abrams script.The problem is that they've already done it.

They've said before that the reason they wrote THE MATRIX was to set up a second film, their superhero movie where they got to make up the rules themselves instead of having to work on a character with forty years (or more) of fan baggage attached.

It's like the problem with M. Night Shyamalan... no matter what, he'll want more creative control than Warner Bros. would be willing to give.

The reason you're not going to get an interesting filmmaker to sign on is because (A) the script eats ass, and (B) there's almost no way to win at this point.

This whole project stinks, and the fact is that you're just starting to get a picture of what's been going on behind the scenes for months.

One of these days, someone's going to tell the whole story in a book and make a bazillion dollars.