Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
if it's them joining forces to fight off generic baddies - nah.
not one of these people who glibly writes off directors based on what Twitter's saying, but Snyder's a good director - Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen (on now actually) are all alright. Man of Steel's surprisingly good and certainly a new take. Obviously Sucker Punch was shit, and being a grownup i've not seen the owl fantasy film he did, but he's pretty decent.
but the rest of his stuff is really second rate. they all look really nice, sure, but have so very little substance to them.
Besides, DC jumping on the crossover bandwagon feels very very hollow - they'd never have touched it before Marvel showed it could and be very profitable at the same time. Unlike Marvel, though, they've still got access to all their top flight characters, but they've hired a pretty hacky director to oversee it all.
I mean, COME ON, this is Batman and Superman. Don't they deserve a director who'll do them justice? Is Zack Snyder really the man for that?
Nolan didn't want it, and in any case two of his three Batman films were pish.
Don't think Nolan likes the source material enough tbh. I like Snyder, I think he has an amazing visual style and a live of the lore. If he has a writer who can bring some depth, I can see this being a solid product (I'm not expecting great things, because even the concept of a Supes vs Batman film is daft - even the graphic novel of The Dark Knight struggles to make it work).
it's not really the sort of thing that needs a 'name' director though
I've completely had enough of po-faced srs bsnss superhero films, so, yeah, please no more Nolan please
Not to say you can't make a light-hearted Batman film, but the character is rooted in a different sort of idea. His Batman films are great stuff, and the fact that kik doesn't agree just makes the point more true.
Not seen Man of Steel but when I heard Nolan was overseeing it I was pretty disappointed because there's a character that definitely doesn't need a big slab of serious.
and good generally means you need to have some idea that they've handled that before. Personally I reckon:
Aw, fuck it, if we're wish-listing, why not get Spielberg involved!
Marvel showed you could do it but - whether entirely successful or not - they spent years working towards colliding plots.
As guntrip says this just smells like a cash-in. Or maybe a 'safe' JL trial run. Whatever the case it's going to basically be made or broken by batman's casting and right now the world has a very specific image of that character with Bale only just leaving. Fucked.
1) This is a "Superman" sequel with Batman in - rubbish.
2) Without Bale they might as well not do it.
3) I thought the consensus was that Snyder shit the bed on Man of Steel?
4) Introducing the most boring superhero (Supes) into the world of the best adaptation of the most interesting DC hero (Bats) is a shit idea, and it barely works in the comics most of the time.
In general I think studios only rate directors on:
- did it come in under budget
- did they do what we said
- did the film make a load of money
Yeah, $630million is quite a good take home actually, I had it in my head it'd not matched expectations.
wiki says $635m
(Iron Man 3 topped $1.1bn, but I think a lot of that was Avengers blowback and I'll be surprised if Thor 2 does that well)
I've not actually seen Man of Steel but most everyone I know who's seen it + has read the comics and gets the character was not impressed with it.
was dull and needlessly po-faced until right at the end but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I was hoping
but then I don't like superman and haven't read many comix so I guess you probably have a point
I mean he cares about people but he can't do much as loads of things are destroyed.
Wolfgang Pieterson was set to direct.
apparently Jude Law had been case as Superman in it. Hah!