Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Bryan Singer, Mild Mannered Reporter/Director From Set of SUPERMAN!

Big comic book movie news? nah..but I am by Aphex Twin	Mar 14th, 2005 12:03:21 AM
first
First by fabfunk	Mar 14th, 2005 12:05:37 AM
So... who's playing Zod?
Not make it geeky? by solowcx	Mar 14th, 2005 12:31:01 AM
What is more geeky than a muscular man in tight blue shorts. Oh... geeky? I thought you said gay.
Two words: KRYPTONIAN WEREWOLVES! by Uncle Stan	Mar 14th, 2005 12:35:13 AM

Uncle Stan by Forestal	Mar 14th, 2005 12:44:41 AM
I'm with you there. The only thing missing from the ROTS trailer was vampires and wherewolves.
The best part of the Spider-Man movies could be considered geeky by Big Bad Clone	Mar 14th, 2005 12:45:35 AM
Hell, most studio execs would have had a Green Goblin/ Doc Ock team up with Brad Pitt as a Spidey with no mask. GG and Doc Ock would be played by Jon Voight and Jude Law. Beyonce would have been Mary Jane. And directed by some guy that directed a 3 Doors Down video. --- I could dismiss all of Spidey's silly bits since they got the core of the characters right. That resonated with people. Hell, everyone could see that Catwoman was put together by committee and Elektra was looked like it was filmed by the same type of people that make "films" for the Sci Fi channel. --- As long as Singer treats Supes with respect, we'll have something that can be good. Maybe not great but all that remains to be seen
Production Diaries are cool... by Rupee88	Mar 14th, 2005 12:56:39 AM
I like the King Kong ones too...I initially thought they would ruin the film for me, but they are fun and interesting to watch and have me more hyped up for it.
This movie is going to kick ass by Rupee88	Mar 14th, 2005 01:03:16 AM
I have total faith in Bryan Singer and think they will do some awesome CGI flying and fight scenes. I don't know anything about the script and it may suck, but I figure when Supes fights the bad guy, it will be great. The Neo/Smith battle in Matrix: Revolutions is a good template of how to do it right, or at least where to start...that is the best superhero fight ever in film.
Production Diaries by Lavaman	Mar 14th, 2005 01:18:06 AM
I wish people would quit giving Peter Jackson credit for starting Production Diary/WebDoc videos. This was George Lucas's idea. Lucas started having "behind the Scenes" WebDoc videos with The Phantom Menace, and continuing with Episodes II and III. The Webdocs for Revenge Of The Sith are still free at StarWars.com. Give credit where credit is due.
I'm not worried about the script by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 14th, 2005 02:51:08 AM
Think its great Singer brought along Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty, thought the way X2 exanded on X-Men was fantastic, hopefully they can bring a similar creative chemistry and energy to this movie (and to Ender's Game and Logans Run). And I don't care who started it, sites like this and KongisKing are just a great way to let us follow the film's production, can't wait to get some behind the scenes stuff flowing in.
"Most studio execs would have had a Green Goblin/ Doc Ock team u by Big Dumb Ape	Mar 14th, 2005 03:38:58 AM
One of my favorite exec suit stories -- when it comes to superhero films and how little the suits often completely miss the boat on the the "geek" factor and how much it's a necessary component to these types of films -- goes back to a story a friend told me while working on THE ROCKETEER production. Apparently right up to the start of shooting, Eisner HATED the Rocketeer's helmet, despite the fact that it was taken directly from the comic. His argument was exactly what you're saying about Spidey -- namely that a person in the movie theater couldn't see Bill Campbell's face when he was in costume. And if you can't SEE the star's face at all times, that MUST be the makings of a bad movie. So Eisner was continually arguing that he thought they should ditch the Rocketeer helmet and instead put on a NASA-like space helmet instead, a more normal helmet to simply pad his head for safety, but one with the faceplate removed so you could always see his face. Thankfully, saner minds prevailed...
Comic relief and in-jokes by Cymbol	Mar 14th, 2005 05:31:31 AM
(Quick side note to "Earth" before I start my rant - Please don't hold Superman 2 as model for how to inject humor into a comicbook movie. They reduced the "greatest mastermind of all time" to a complete idiot for comic relief) Anyway, my nitpicks for any movie. **The obligatory comic relief character. This is usually a studio idea for "mass appeal". Spiderman 2, X-Men 2 did just fine without it. - Otis from superman 1 was a big weak-link. Come on, a rich, super-genius has this guy doing the leg work? * When movies reference themselves - I thought Kevin Smith's script was dull. And the worst line from it was when he is with Louis and jumps off the side of a cliff and comes back up as Supes and says, "Up,up, and way . . I always wanted to say that." Why would he want to say that? Because he read the superman comicbook when he was a kid? And the X-Men line. "Would you rather wear yellow spandex?" We get it. The movie is based off the comic book!! I'm of the opposite opinion. To make a good comic book movie you have to lay off the comic relief and in jokes. That's just me.
By the way . . . by Cymbol	Mar 14th, 2005 05:35:06 AM
I always thought the old tag line for Superman was funny. "Look, up in the sky, it's a bird! No, it's a plane, it's Superman!!" What the hell was that first person on to stop in the middle of a crowd and yell, "Look it's a bird!!" Ah, the old and innocent days.
Err, I always thought it was supposed to be more like... by Monkey Butler	Mar 14th, 2005 05:45:14 AM
"Look, up in the sky!" "It's [just] a bird", "It's a plane" "It's Superman!"...although it'd be funny if it was meant to be the way you said
And: by Monkey Butler	Mar 14th, 2005 05:49:22 AM
And I can't believe that at AICN nobody's made a joke about Singer saying "it's going to be bi...or tri". Are people actually getting more tolerant around here? Or was that just a little too subtle? Actually, what does that say about me that I picked up on it...
Is it a bird or a plane? by Cymbol	Mar 14th, 2005 07:06:56 AM
What's worse is people actually stopped to debate whether it was a bird. And some guy on crack says, "No, I think it's a plane. . . Oh wait a minute, that's a man. I was way off!!!" Oh yeah, I forgot the whole reason for posting. The documentary. Which wasn't more of an "teaser" for the mini-documentaries to come. That's even worse than those Teaser Trailers that show you nothing but the title of the movie and the date. And yes, Monkey Butler, that was all you. I didn't pick up on any bi or tri thing. But hey, I was distracted by Singer trying to be amusing in his teaser documentary. And I refuse to waste my time watching it again to see if you were right. I'll just trust you on this one.
Big Dumb Ape by BarrelRider	Mar 14th, 2005 08:02:36 AM
For me the worst example of that is Judge Dredd. Fans of the comic the world over winced with embarassment when, 5 minutes into the film, Stallone takes off the helmet thereby completely ruining any hopes we had of this being a good adaptation. Because, hey, if he hadn't taken the helmet off, we wouldn't have known it was Stallone, right? And that would have meant that, um, we wouldn't have gone to see the movie.... I really do wonder what the hell goes through the minds of these execs sometimes....
Damn it! While I'm on the subject. by Cymbol	Mar 14th, 2005 08:28:22 AM
One movie cliche' that I must mention that kills me (besides the one hit knock-out when spies sneak around, ala Alias) is when a person is knocked out until after the action is done. So that either A. They didn't see something that must remain a secret. B. Another character fights alone. Example A. - Smallville. (I know, I said movie cliches). Example B. - Attack of the Clones. Anakin gets an arm chopped off and passes out. I would too. Obi-Won gets a leg cut and falls down. Yoda fights alone. Then saves the immoblized duo from being squashed. After said bad guy leaves, (the second!!) they both stand up and limp away. All of a sudden they can move. Oh well, anybody else have any good movie cliche's?
This movie vs Origin Story by Aetius450	Mar 14th, 2005 10:30:35 AM
I'm a fan of origin stories. Regardless of who WB got to direct this movie, when it came to the script they should have just adapted that mid-late 90s Superman Cartoon's origin story to the big screen, and just started over like they are with Batman Begins. I don't understand the decision to pick up in a loose way from the orignial series. While the original movie had some great moments and great parts, it also had some atrocious elements. Christopher Reeve was perfectly cast, but the Clark Kent role was terribly written. Since when was Clark supposed to be SuperDork? Same thing for Lex Luthor -- great actor, horribly written part. And the fight scenes in Superman II sucked, though I guess that can be forgiven due to the technological constraints of the time. Having said that, Superman doesn't look too super when he winces away from the explosion of that piece of building he hit with his heat vision. The complaint that people already know the back story and don't want to see it again may be somewhat valid, but if the origin story itself is done well with some new twists, then it would be embraced by the general audience, irregardless of what some of the more devoted fans think.
Clark pretending to a dork makes me think that thing from Kill B by Big Bad Clone	Mar 14th, 2005 11:01:59 AM
I mean it's one thing to be clumsy but another to be clumsy on purpose. And really how long could he keep that up? I mean, he does spend most of his day as Clark. It does seem insulting that he they way he acts human is like a fucktard. Now if was clumsy all the time, that'd be interesting. "Oh, fuck I meant to use X-Ray vision on Lois' top, not heat vision" Or he drops a plane he was saving, "Ooopsy, butterfingers" and him flying into ( and through, I guess) a building.
Kill Bill and Superman by MiserableRainGod	Mar 14th, 2005 12:37:27 PM
Superman 2 isn't very good, Damn, that movie is slow, Lex Luthor is lame, and the fights aren't great. John Williams didn't write and conduct the score, Donner didn't direct (ahem), and Richard Pryor didn't show up for another few years (heh heh). But when Lois figures things out at Niagra Falls, and tells Supes that his disguise is nearly perfect, I laugh. The disguise is, as everyone in the real world knows, horrible! Certainly a commentary on how gullable regular people are from the original creators of Superman. As for the Kill Bill thing, I like that scene a lot, when Bill talks to the Bride about Superman. I used to think Bill had a point, but I realize now what is going on---what Bill says is more a commentary on the evil of his own character, that he could actually believe that SUPERMAN of all people would have this contempt for humanity. Bill is actually dead wrong, only projecting onto Superman his own contempt and hatred for humanity...maybe seeking to justify his own existence by equating himself, in this warped way, to the greatest hero who ever lived.
To most people over the age of 30 Clark WAS a dork by the G-man	Mar 14th, 2005 12:43:05 PM
It wasn't until the Byrne reimagining that Clark stopped being a clumsy nerd. The 1978 movie was simply capturing something about the character that was there since the first stories in 1938.
most people over the age of 30 at this website ARE dorks by MiserableRainGod	Mar 14th, 2005 01:16:01 PM
Sorry, I just had to say it.
Okay, let's say Superman is who he really is and Clark is the di by Big Bad Clone	Mar 14th, 2005 02:26:43 PM
Then why the fuck even bother with the disguise? Why not just fly around all day saving people. While he's dicking around playing reporter, people are getting mugged, hurt, dying, etc. Look at Batman. Clearly, he's Batman first and Bruce Wayne second. And whenever he has to do stuff to maintain his Wayne persona, he's a bit pissed he's not out patrolling. So why does Kal-El keep pretending he's human? Sure he was raised as one, but Jonathan Kent didn't act like a bumbling fool. And most people develop traits and personalities based on how they were reared. So what is influencing him to act that way? Without the big S, he looks like a dude and if he was working as a librarian instead of working at a place that prints pictures of Superman, he wouldn't need a disguise. I can go on forever because that bumbling Clark thing bugs the shit out of me. The cartoon series, Smallville, and even Lois & Clark didn't have bumbling Clarks and it didn't take away from the story. Having him be a doofus is as bad as that "Up, up and Away...I always wanted to say that" shit.
And, yes, my job isn't very demanding of my attention by Big Bad Clone	Mar 14th, 2005 02:28:18 PM
Sorry for the lenght of my last post.
Aetius by Gheorghe Zamfir	Mar 14th, 2005 03:10:34 PM
I think one good thing that may come out of the decision to do it like this is we can actually skip the origin story, though that was really some of the best stuff of the first Supes, on the same hand everyone knowns Superman's origin story, so maybe we can get into the story without having to waste time retreading exposition, this can be on par with X2 and Spidey 2 with the advantage of not needing a Singer directed Superman 1 to set it up.
Brandon Routh rhymes with Crammed In Mouth...don't ask me what t by Shigeru	Mar 14th, 2005 03:13:16 PM
I think Bill's speech in KB Vol. 2 has more to do with how he views Kiddo than what he thinks of Supes. No matter how hard she tries to hide it, she is at her core a killer (Kryptonian).
Why he bothers with the disguise. by Village Idiot	Mar 14th, 2005 03:30:55 PM
Big Bad Clone: Back in the seventies, a comic writer named Elliot Maggin wrote some novels about Superman where he offered up one explanation. (Sidebar: Elliot Maggin actually consulted with Puzo when Puzo wrote the first draft of the movie, and you can see some of Maggin's elements from comics and books pop up in the movie. Unlike John Byrne, who revamped the character with the "Clark Kent is who he really is" approach, Maggin presented a more traditional, synthesized approach that many consider to be more definitive.) Maggin's explanation for Clark was simple: Loneliness. If Superman didn't have a conduit through which he could interface with humanity on normal human terms, he'd be terribly lonely. And perhaps, in addition to other more practical reasons like the effectiveness of the disguise, he humbles himself as Clark Kent to achieve an more equal footing in relation to humanity overall. So creating a 3-dimensional Clark Kent was his superhobby, something that he enjoyed and poured his heart into._____But explanations aside, and especially movie-wise, it's entertaining, light comedy. Seeing Reeve do Cary Grant from BRINGING UP BABY in SUPERMAN was funny and effective, and the fact that Reeve was able to pull of the transition so well is part of what made the film.
And obviously, my job isn't that demanding either. by Village Idiot	Mar 14th, 2005 03:33:08 PM
PS: Miserable Rain God -- Whoa. Game, set, match.
The perfect disguise by tbrosz	Mar 14th, 2005 04:56:08 PM
On the contrary, Superman's disguise in the movies was (as far as it went) excellent. Clark had an entirely different way of carrying himself, voice patterns, and behaviors. It wasn't just the glasses. In fact, one of the main reasons Christopher Reeve got the job was his talent at separating the two characters so effectively. For all intents and purposes, they signed him up as Clark, and trained him into Superman. In the comics, the idea was that Clark's mannerisms, voice, etc. were so unlike Superman's that the glasses were almost irrelevant. I remember one issue of the comic from years ago where Clark was dressed for a costume party or something as Superman, and not one person saw him as anything other than Clark in a Superman costume.
Superman's Superhobby by Big Bad Clone	Mar 14th, 2005 05:02:26 PM
Ya know, several villians of Batman and Spider-Man had figured out their identities and they wear masks. But even genuis Lex Luthor doesn't know that mask-less Superman is Clark Kent. Lois figured it out in the movies. I can't recall too many in the comics knowing who he is. Supes's disguise holds up pretty well. Sort of like how when Dr. Octopus unmasks Spider-Man to reveal Peter Parker, J. Jonah and whoever else was there said bullshit because Parker was too big a nerd to be Spidey. I still don't like the goofiness, but it's still better than what McG would've pulled out of his ass. "So Clark is a snowboarder that goes by the name C-Dog and is sponsered by this webzine, The Daily Planetizit. Then he sees this fine bi-curious chick and he fakes breaking his leg and works on the Daily Planetizit as the sports guy. That way we can get in a bunch of athelete cameos wearing team jersey of teams they no longer play for by the time the movie comes out!"
I saw images of Hackman's Luthor and Ms. Tessmarker in this vide by riskebiz	Mar 14th, 2005 06:07:31 PM
I'm slightly worried that Kevin Spacey's Luthor will be based on Hackman's. Does this mean will have Otis, too? Gag.
Voicebox5 by Dannychico	Mar 14th, 2005 11:00:08 PM
"irregardless" IS a word. It is now used interchangeably and is synonymous with "regardless." What started out as a mistake is now acceptable. The English language is constantly in flux. Get off your high horse, especially when you are wrong.
Gheorghe Zamfir,G-Man,voicebox5 by Aetius450	Mar 14th, 2005 11:05:34 PM
Its all obviously a matter of taste. Some see an origin story as wasted time, but I see it as a chance to improve upon the original. The moments where Clark discovers his powers and heritage as a child/young man in Smallville could make for some of the best moments. As to Clark being a superdork before the Byrne reimagining; was that so in the comics? It wasn't in the tv show with George Reeves was it? I just found it very irksome. But I guess that's just my experience with the character. Looking back, I also hate the way Lex was written. I much prefer the evil corporate tycoon mold for him than some fugitive joke. And voicebox5: I'm sorry I subjected you to some questionable grammar in a talback forum about Superman. I should have used another word, but it should be noted that the word 'irregardless' has some level of acceptance in speech at least. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic tionary?book=Dictionary&va=irr egardless
Will Spacey yell......"MRRRSSSSS TESSSMACHERRRR!!!!!" by Bong	Mar 14th, 2005 11:35:15 PM

Thanks Cymbol! by DoctorWho?	Mar 14th, 2005 11:47:44 PM
You are cracking me up, lol!
I don't care if Irregardless is slowly finding acceptance, it is by George Newman	Mar 15th, 2005 12:53:39 AM
I hate the damn tolerance of ignorance.
Oh my God, is Marsden not going to be a part of the Phoenix Saga by George Newman	Mar 15th, 2005 01:04:47 AM
Holy balls, if X3 really goes through with the "No Superman cast will be part of X3", this is going to blow hard. I'd rather there be no Wolverine in X3 than no Cyclops
For the record: 1936-86, Clark = Dork. by Village Idiot	Mar 15th, 2005 02:12:46 AM
From ACTION #1 all the way to ACTION #583, Clark was a cowardly doofus. This also held true for the radio show and the movie serial. True, for the television show, George Reeves' performance presented a more easygoing, perpetually bemused verison of the character, but this was atypical. Overall, the movie's Clark reflected the comic book rendition pretty accurately.
I knew Singer would do well with SUPERMAN after I see the White by Spacesheik	Mar 15th, 2005 06:47:52 AM
The X-men 2 openings was fucking magnificent -- if only the rest of the film managed that kinetic action...
To clarify: Bruce Wayne is fucking crazy and had made himself in by Big Bad Clone	Mar 15th, 2005 10:12:24 AM
That's who he is now. He acts like a easy going playboy when he walks around as Bruce Wayne for business functions and social stuff. But even then he is approaching things as Batman. And really, he spends most of his time training and fighting crime. He doesn't have to do much work for his corporations, if any. He doesn't take vacations. But, I can see how the story of Batman could end two ways. He drives his ass into the ground as dies fighting crime, or he realizes that he has to let go and become a man again. Now any guy crazy enough to fight crime in a Bat suit and take on super villians when he has zero powers, I'm guessing it's not going to end to well for him. Superman would likely die of old age whereas Bats would die in his batsuit.
Too Bad Bryan SInger SUCKS!!!!!! by Carl_Kolchak	Mar 15th, 2005 04:17:04 PM
Not that we need another Superman movie, but could they have picked a less talented director? Sure. But Singer's the kind of earnest half-wit that will make a boring, slightly credible dud like X-Men and X2. Movies for morons. He's got no freakin' story sense or imagination. Ugh.
by Darth Tedious	Mar 15th, 2005 06:18:48 PM
I'll carry on regardless and see this film; irrespective of others opinions of me for doing so.
Irregardless of Clark being clumsy, this film has potentiality o by Bong	Mar 15th, 2005 09:00:28 PM

darth tedious by chaoslover01	Mar 15th, 2005 09:10:39 PM
I nearly spit out my drink when I read your post. Concise and subtle, but funny as hell at the same time.
NO, no you're not following me! by Avon	Mar 16th, 2005 06:36:21 AM
Haha... Bryan's a funny guy.
voicebox by Aetius450	Mar 16th, 2005 10:22:42 AM
I admitted that I should have used a different word, in this forum where correct grammar is of such importance, but what is your excuse for being such a dick?
Superman Spoilers by darkkelt	Mar 16th, 2005 11:20:51 AM
Our anonymous scooper who has provided us with two major scoops (Brandon Routh and Marlon Brando) has chimed in yet again with a bit of story details from SUPERMAN RETURNS! THIS MAY OR MY NOT HAPPEN, we can
Superman Spoilers by darkkelt	Mar 16th, 2005 11:22:23 AM
This above came from latino review. whether its true or not it sure sounds very interesting
if that latino review scoop is true. by Shigeru	Mar 16th, 2005 12:13:19 PM
Then it means Jon Peters has some sway still. "I don't want to see him in that faggy suit!"
Voicebox5 by one9deuce	Mar 16th, 2005 04:23:56 PM
You wrote: "Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing." Um, what could be more "casual writing" than a talkback forum?! Fucking dipshit.
Voicebox5 by one9deuce	Mar 16th, 2005 07:46:35 PM
I guess you're right. In a talkback where people colorfully swear, refer to things in slang, and use acronyms constantly because we are all to lazy to spell out complete movie titles, we should at least use proper wording. Dipshit.
Oh, voicebox5 by one9deuce	Mar 17th, 2005 01:39:20 AM
IMHO, u r a biznatch, irregardless. Oh, and Supes ROX! See you in another thread perhaps.

Talkbacks

Bryan Singer, Mild Mannered Reporter/Director From Set of SUPERMAN!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks