Superman looking for Director

I'm more concerned with seeing the umpteenth re-hashing of the origin than anything.

Well, that and I'd like to see someone that -looks- at least a little bit convincing as a Kansas farmboy. Doesn't need to be a bodybuilder of McGuinessian proportions, but some meat on the bones would help.

And stay away from the homages to the Reeves movies. They were great for their time, but now, not so much.

And for the love of the gods, get Clancy Brown for Lex Luthor.

good luck D.B.B.

As long as the Salkind's aren't given any sort of control over the script or the product, I don't really care who directs it.

Slo moving swoopy flying scenes are as dated as spending 15min of screentime in a shuttle looking at the Enterprise in spacedock.

Ok. How about something totally different..

Clint Eastwood for directing.
He can make a personal film with scope and heroic themes.

Find a director of photography that could give us epic visuals using a real city scape.

Get someone to write a score that evokes John Williams but sets its own standard.

Get an actor that has the gravitas and the awe shucks maim needed to play both Supes and Clark

Its not the CGI set pieces, its not the villian, its not the flying, the heat vision or lifting a small moon. Its the personal choice to do the morally right thing that sets Superman as the icon of heroes.

At least, thats how I see it.

According to what I just read on IWatchStuff.com the directors being seriously considered for Superman are:

1.) Zack Snyder (300)

2.) Tony Scott (Man on Fire, True Romance, Taking of Pelham 123, many others)

3.) Matt Reeves (Cloverfield)

4.) Duncan Jones (Moon)

5.) Jonathan Liebesman (Texas Chainsaw Massacre)

(I'd have provided a link but I'm not internet savvy at all and don't know how.)

Personally, I'm a bit sick of Zack Snyder. Tony Scott has made many a great film though. To me, he's looking like the best out of the bunch, although I really enjoyed Moon, so I wouldn't be disapointed with Duncan Jones either.

Of course, this is all still conjecture--just stuff I read on another website, but interesting regardless.

I liked Bryan Singer's take on it and think he should be allowed to continue with the franchise.

First and foremost, I would like to see GOOD WRITING. Make a story that mostly makes sense, without plot holes big enough to drive the Space Shuttle through.

Too many people talk about how wonderful the Richard Donner films were . . . but the WRITING WAS TERRIBLE. Sure, Christopher Reeve looked great and did a great job of separating Supes and Clark. The special effects for the time were excellent. But I remember walking out of the theater thinking, "What the hell was that? Supes was warned that he cannot change history . . . so he does and there were no consequences???" Combine that with a lame comedic Lois Lane, Lex Luthor and henchmen and a stupid main plot. And what was with that stupid 'If I Could Read His Mind' flying bit?" I wanted ACTION and I got eye candy at best.

Superman II was better in that we finally had real supervillains, but it had even stupider plot holes and things that came out of nowhere. (a) Finger spray telekinesis?? Huh? (b) "Throwing the S" (c) Telling Supes that if he gives up his powers, it will be forever . . . and then he gets them back. Another "meaningless warning" with no consequences. (d) And then he somehow re-wires the Fortress to de-power the bad guys outside the chamber? Huh? (e) the "amnesia kiss" power. (f) more "comedic" bad guys, and Lex's role was just bad.

None of it the actors fault -- all horrible writing. Don't need to go into Superman Returns, other than the fact that the writing was equally bad. Horrible story choice, horrible plot choices. Heavy handed directing -- did we really need a "crucified Superman" moment?

Brad Bird would be wonderful -- he has yet to make a movie less than great. But he might not be considered since he is linked to Pixar/Disney/Marvel. Tony Scott and Duncan Jones look like good options.

Clint Eastwood? In the '70s, they considered casting him as Superman. But now at 80, he's probably too old to take on a film of this magnitude.

Also, it would seem that Darron Aronofsky is now in the running as well, and other than maybe Tony Scott, he would be my choice.

I actually think that if Aronofsky wants it, it'll be his, providing Christopher Nolan is going to be the major decision maker. Aronofsky just seems like he'd be Nolan's choice as they have a quite a bit in common in terms of work beliefs. Both are visionary and generally pretty uncompromising. I really think that if Aronofsky wants it, it's in the bag, if it's up to Nolan.

However, Warner Bros will be harder to convince. And I think that Aronofsky is going to want quite a bit of creative control, which Warners will probably be reluctant to give.

We'll see. Personally, as I think he's one of the five best directors working right now, I'd give this the thumbs up.

Jeez, all right, I'll do it!

Let me check my Planner...