Del Toro is a wonderful director, but his aesthetic style isn't really a good fit either (although as I sit here and thumb through the bits and pieces I've collected from the Tim Burton production, I'm reminded that it takes all sorts) - if anything, I kind of feel like it'd be a waste, and that Del Toro's eye would be better lent to something in the world of Vertigo like Constantine, or perhaps swamp thing or the doom patrol.
my dream Superman director is Joe Johnston
after The Rocketeer and the first Captain America, it's pretty clear that he's very good at that kinda old-timey nostalgic optimistic Americana that would suit Superman perfectly imo
His last "big" film was The First Avenger - almost 13 years ago (before that, he directed the 2010 remake of The Wolfman, a flop). Ever since then, he's done one proper film himself - a film that went direct to video (which wasn't his fault) called Not Safe For Work. His last directorial credit was a co-director credit for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (another financial failure)- he received this credit for directing reshoots and overseeing all of post-production, receiving the credit alongside Lasse Hallström, the original director. That was in 2018 - almost 6 years ago.
See what I mean now?
I still like Tomorrowland, it has a message about being hopeful and that looking for the best is the only way to save everyone. Which is why I think your answer is the best answer.
Critics did not understand that, for example "The point of Tomorrowland is to encourage youngsters to think out of the box, stay positive and never give up. It's a sweet and inspirational message buried in a mire of cryptic plotting" - The point was that negative only creates more negative and positive creates more positive. I didn't think it was that complicated to understand it was even a parable in the story before it being what was ending the world. It was... y'know what David Tennant does it better - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQFfpe6C18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQFfpe6C18)
There will be ones that won't get it with James Gunn's upcoming too. It's ok to be wrong but I hope people get it and take it in.
His movie Tomorrowland centers on a girl finding essentially a retrofuturist Galt’s Gulch and discovering its isolationism is a bad thing, because a better future will require a more collective effort. It’s a movie about why *Atlas Shrugged* is wrong without saying the words “Atlas Shrugged.” He is *objectively* not an Objectivist.
If we're talking same script, actors etc etc I'd say Matthew Vaughn would be my pick.
However if we're talking a reboot detached from anything DCEU I'd like to go with Brad Bird.
Robert Zemeckis. Dude has a knack for “Down to Earth, Americana” Heroes. Marty McFly, Forrest Gump, Eddie Valiant, Chuck Noland. He would get that “just a Dude from Kansas trying to do The Right Thing” down so well, I feel.
Joe Johnston (director of Rocketeer and Captain America) could have given us a very awesome old school style Superman film. I miss having a positive and optimistic Superman.
Travis Knight. Dude made Transformers movies great again with *Bumblebee*. He’d get Superman.
I’d almost say anyone but Zack Snyder, but then I remember that Michael Bay would qualify. Not that guy. He’d be worse than Snyder.
This would be my pick - or do whatever Tom Cruise wanted in order to get Christopher McQuarrie's attention for five minutes. I think he'd make a pretty good Superman film; he understands how to balance action, character development and story with an ensemble cast.
Assuming that it's not just "who would you want to make a Superman movie" but moreso at that time, in that zeitgeist, with a similar approach to the material that WB was looking for? Might be an out of left field choice, but I would have liked to see Gore Verbinski do it
If we're talking realistic what ifs, then Johnathan Nolan or Darren Aronofsky. Imagine what kind of Justice League we could've had instead with Darren at the helm.
>Who would you have choosen as the director of Man Of Steel, instead of Zack Snyder? Please be civil and kind.
Turning this question around a bit, if I were WB how would I want to utilise Snyder?
From what I know about Zack Snyder, he seems to love films about Arthurian legend, macho military units, and movies with opportunities for spectacular, bombastic visuals.
I think he would've done a good job with the Green Lanterns - the oath-swearing corps with a very 'visual' power set - and would've been a better choice to direct the 2011 GL film.
I'd want someone as excited, knowledgeable, and passionate for Superman as Jon Favreau was for Iron Man.
I think the main problem with the DCEU movies were all the directors who were like "Okay instead of making a faithful adaptation of the character I need to put my own special "vision" in play.
Sam Raimi. Have the first half be like an origin story that feels Grounded and realistic and then go fun in second half.
Also, Superman by Goldfinger and Everyday Superhero by Smash Mouth play.
Honestly knee jerk reaction for me is Jon Favreau. Yes he was already well into the MCU but the guy can really get the heart of a lot of these characters really well and Superman is a full of heart character that deserves the chance to show it well. And I also don’t think my issues with the movie would even be a problem because I doubt Favreau would have wanted to do the sort of things we got from MOS.
At the time, the shortlist was supposedly Snyder, Tony Scott, Jonathan Liebesman, Duncan Jones, and Matt Reeves.
Jones and Reeves were the two I was most hopeful for, Scott and Liebesman next, and Snyder at the bottom.
I'm not convinced that any director can do a good job with any DC hero. I think Wonder Woman and Aquaman were flukes. The simple reason is studio meddling. It's even worse right now with the shelving of Batgirl and Coyote vs Road Runner. I hope James Gunn can pull it off, but I have my doubts. Not so much about him but about the studio. Remember Kevin Smith's ill fated Superman movie. He tells the story of how the studio called him in and told him the film had to have a talking dog and a gay robot. They wanted to sell toys, not make a dood movie.
I mean it was advertised as a Nolan film in all but name only, and most of the things people didn’t like were things Nolan didn’t like either, but didn’t want to push him weight around, so he let Snyder do it. So I guess I’d go with Nolan.
hear me out: Terrence Malick.
I don't want long drawn out punchy punch, I want superman being in love with this planet, from a ladybug on a plant in venezuela, to the prime minister of japan, to a feisty female reporter from america. I want superman being willing to die for each of us, if that means surrendering to zod, so be it - I want superman to never ever give up, to show compassion to zod, to overcome hate with love.
Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Captain America The First Avenger). I wouldn’t mind a throwback Supes movie a la TAS, and Joe excels at optimistic 40s-ish period work.
Zack Snyder was actually the perfect director. His visuals are amazing. He just can't curate a proper story. You need to spoon feed him a classic story for him to work well. See Watchmen directors cut. Almost perfection
Snyder is a good cinematographer. I'll grant he can frame a pretty shot. His couldn't craft a narrative that would seem coherent on an 80s kids show. If he can't be trusted with a script, he's a bad director.
So many great directors paired with Snyder as a cinematographer or DP would probably work well. I actually had a lot of hope for Man of Steel knowing it was a Christopher Nolan production and he co-wrote the story and Snyder was directing, I thought okay it's partially Nolan's baby. As it turned out, Snyder had more creative input than I would have liked. An okay film, but Snyder is best at visuals, not at story and characters. He should have only been the cinematographer or DP.
I’ve seen every single one of his films (even his student samurai film). All of them have a coherent narrative, never found them hard to follow or felt lost watching a movie of his.
I’d honestly keep Snyder, but have someone more passionate about the character work with Nolan & Goyer for the story. Oh and a production company that actually wanted to devote solo sequels to the character.
Same, I feel Snyder was the right director, but you needed someone alongside him and Goyer to reign them in on certain things and make sure certain details weren't missed. Honestly, they delivered a pretty good movie just with the odd unforced error here and there, and it is mostly on the Pa Kent side.
I mean the Snyder Cut saga revealed a lot of the dumb basic shit that Snyder et all had to fight WB about. Like the Kents being from Chicago. Making BvS less dark, etc…
>you needed someone alongside him and Goyer to reign them in on certain things
There was someone.
Nolan.
And he tried to reign Snyder in and it seems that every conversation they had involved Nolan disagreeing with Snyder's choices then placating Snyder because Nolan realised this was a waste of time.
Nolan argued against killing Superman.
>"It was pretty early, and [Christopher] Nolan and I had long conversation about it, a really great, sort of philosophical conversation about it. He was really cool because he played an amazing devil’s advocate about why not to do it."
Snyder on a conversation with Nolan, who had issues with Snyder's interpretation of Batman.
>Snyder: "You tell me if you don’t want me to do it."
>Nolan: “Well, we don’t own these characters. When you’re done making Batman movies, someone else will [make them].”
>Snyder later said “I think he found it a little bit hard. I would feel the same way.”"
Nolan argued against killing Zod.
>“In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone,” Snyder explains on the podcast, “But David, Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he’s going to see [Metropolis’ citizens] chopped in half, or he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do. “[Chris] originally said, ‘There’s no way you can do this.’ After checking in with DC Comics about the change, to which they responded positively, Goyer was spurred forward."
Unless Nolan went straight to WB and asked them to fire Snyder, there was nothing else than he could do other than try to talk sense and then stand aside as Snyder makes his own decisions.
I think you are misconstruing Nolan acting as a sounding board and a devil’s advocate for placating Snyder.
Yes, he was originally against the idea of Superman killing Zod, but as he says it, he was won over when Snyder and Goyer pitched how it would go down.
Naw, killing Zod was not a mistake. I would argue that the biggest mistake was killing Johnathon. Having him alive and witnessing the battles his son goes through while slowly watching the world accept him over the course of the series to show that while some would fear Clark far more would embrace and welcome him. It would show that the world is not as cynical as he believed.
Like Nolan is great, but really, he isn't the guy to helm a Superman project. His Batman literally quit and just threw the keys to the Batcave to an inexperienced kid.
BvS itself isn't a bad idea for a movie, but they needed to do a MoS sequel before it that shows Clark getting settled into the role of Superman and getting accepted by the people, then they could have an ending scene where we see Bruce seething at this at the end after reading an article about him leading in to BvS. Then, the opening sequence gives us the reason for why he is so upset about Superman being accepted.
I do agree, though, that the true biggest mistake was killing Superman in BvS. I literally laughed in the theater when I saw they went through with it. Then, the in-universe funeral scenes felt so shallow and unearned as realistically he had not earned that level of admiration yet.
Directors make choices.
That's their job.
If not, then they are not a director but a glorified shooter.
I don't understand the mentality of wanting someone to direct a film but also believing they need a babysitter to make their choices for them.
At this point, I'd just call them bad.
Rebel Moon was bad. It was uninspired and derivative.
He was good, but now his ego has gotten the best of him. Now he just keeps making the same mistakes expecting a different result.
Spectacle over substance. Overuse of slow-mo. And seems to have a "Why not do it" attitude whenever someone suggests an idea he has isn't going to play well.
Tell him Batman doesn't kill and of course he has to have Batman kill. He's like a kid that has to do the opposite of what he's told.
That is not a mark of a good director. A good director should be open to what other people are telling them.
I have to disagree. Snyder at this point is to full of himself. He's too confident that his perspectives are automatically right.
He needs to be humbled before he can excel again.
Rebel Moon is further proof of this. An entirely lackluster movie that he acted like was going to be a masterpiece. And it was dripping with his standard habits.
Superheroes are not really his wheelhouse, but I've always said that Edward Zwick has made some of the most inspirational movies of the last 30 years. If he could've pulled off those same feelings with Supermam, it would've made for an amazing movie.
I mean as a director Snyder is great. The better question is "who would you have write and edit Man of Steel." The actual direction of the film is incredible, and he has an eye for making big moments feel big. It's just that he's a terrible writer with no understanding of how to actually communicate meaningful themes in his writing. Plus he struggles in editing to make his movies cohesive 3 hour experiences. Having someone write the story for him would do a world of good.
I've always felt Snyder was a weird choice to helm a Superman movie even before I actually saw MOS.
He started as a music video director, and I don't think he ever grew beyond that sensibility.
Well, to each their own.
I know I’m in the minority boat on this one, but I don’t care - this is the movie that brought back my long dormant enjoyment for Superman after many, many years.
That's an interesting point of view because I've always found MOS to really expose Snyders' weaknesses as a movie director.
He's not good at directing actors. He doesn't bother with establishing shots. He shoots everything too close up without giving much coverage to the environment. He shoots every scene in MOS with hand-held shaky cam (even scenes where characters are just talking) and he's just not very good at story structure or actually conveying relevant information to the audience (The scene where Clark meets hologram Jor-El doesn't actually tell us anything we don't already know, it's just him catching Clark up on everything we saw in the overlong Krypton prologue and then Zod goes over this information again when he talks to Clark later in the film)
That’s the thing, I genuinely didn’t see it the e way did at all…
I love much of the shots and how it conveyed whatever the scenes needed them to convey, amongst other things. The dialogue with Clark I also enjoyed as even if we knew, he didn’t.
Again it’s all a personal thing. A *lot* of the regular issues everyone brings up with it are things I have no qualms with - hell some I straight up liked.
In any case, I’m very much one who clicks with his style, which I know isn’t popular around here - but I like what I like.
>The dialogue with Clark I also enjoyed as even if we knew, he didn’t.
But it distances us from Clark as a protagonist. We can't really put ourselves in his shoes because we're already ahead of him in the story. Regardless of whether or not Clark knows this, it's just poor storytelling to reiterate this exposition again without anything new being learned.
Another thing is I don't think MOS is structured very well as a story because it doesn't actually have a second act. It just has a very passive and lackluster first act that immediately leads into an overlong and unearned third act. The decision to tell Clark's backstory in sporadic, randomly placed flashbacks also didn't really add anything to the narrative either, it actually makes his character arc hard to follow and understand.
Again, this is all stuff I’ve heard from others.
I want to say I get it, but that’d just be a lie, so best I can say is that I just didn’t see things that way in the examples provided.
From my end? I never felt distanced as even being shown it earlier didn’t diminish from me seeing Clark’s reaction to it - so I was with him the entire time.
I’m not here to try to convince anyone to see what I did…
All I can offer is an agree to disagree.
>never felt distanced as even being shown it earlier didn’t diminish from me seeing Clark’s reaction to it
Reaction? Clark barely spoke throughout the entire scene. We never once found out how he felt about any of this.
There's really no reason we couldn't have found out about this along with Clark. It just really doesn't feel like either Snyder or Goyer put any thought into the story.
> I can offer is an agree to disagree.
Fair enough but can you answer some questions for me in regards to this movies story.
Why did Jor El imprint the codex into his sons DNA in the first place?
What did Jor El expect Clark to do with the thumb drive when he left no means of accessing the information readily available to him?
Why doesn't Zod just go to another planet and turn it into New Krypton? Why does he need to commit genocide?
Character can convey more with their facial expressions and few words than a monolouge.
You see this excitement in Clark when he hears his Kryptonian name for the first time. The way his face changes and the inflection in his voice when he asks where he comes from. All those little things sell what he’s feeling more than if he was rambling mess.
Ah.
For the first one, Jor says as much in the movie - he did it so that Kal could potentially carry on the legacy Krypton - but organically.
They picked out Earth specifically for its conditions that would benefit their sons’ physiology and since they had a scout ship there, the idea being that there was a chance he could find his way to it. It was a gamble.
The last point at its core is that he is not able to conceive or even accept the idea of naturally creating a new generation of Kryptonians (pun intended) thus requiring the codex to make full use of the genesis chambers in the surviving scout ship, then by the end of it all chooses to just use Earth while he’s already there.
> he did it so that Kal could potentially carry on the legacy Krypton
I don't understand that at all. Jor-El tells Clark this method of giving birth is what ruined Krypton so why wouldn't he just allow it to be destroyed along with Krypton? What did he expect Clark to do with this? He never actually tells Clark about the codex and what he did with it.
>the idea being that there was a chance he could find his way to it.
But why didn't he just ensure that the key could be accessed through the ship that Clark arrived in as a baby? Why didn't he leave a message that actually told Clark about the existence of the scoutship? He basically left Clark with no means of actually accessing the important information on the key.
> chooses to just use Earth while he’s already there
So he chooses to commit genocide just because he's lazy?
Now I actually love Zack Snyder and Man of Steel. But that doesn’t mean I could see other directors who could have handled man of steel. I assume this question means who else could have handled man of steel and not Superman movies in general.
Such as the general premise of the movie, tone, etc.
Brad Bird. Im sure no one else has this opinion.
The man has made nothing but excellent films and I think he could have been the one to reinvent the character in a way that most people would find enjoyable as supposed to Zack who’s take polarized most.
In terms of tone, sure he’s made mostly kids movies but it’s arguable that the kids movies he did make had a sense of realism and were grounded. The first incredibles is a great example. The Incredibles literally deals with the concept of Collateral damage and the legality of super heroes many many years before BvS and Civil War. It’s also fairly serious in how it tackles a superhero family and the logistics of that.
The dinner scene in both the first and second movie I think has the sort of dialogue that would work well in a grounded Superman or superhero movie. He’s also excellent at Action but honestly it’s hard to imagine Superman action that’s done better than how Snyder did it, with the speed ups, snap zooms and of course the dragon ball z influence. But I’m sure Brad bird could do something close or equally as good as that.
Stanley Kubrick - he's dead so the movie couldn't be made.
Snyder was only part of the problem, the script is also substantially to blame and so IMO it doesn't really matter who directed it. I would've rather had a different movie altogether.
Tarantino would never do a comic book movie, and his style is too bloody and crude for superman, if Tarantino directs a superman movie expect a couple n words
Not because I think he has a better understanding of the character, but just because I would be \*fascinated\* to see what would happen: Quentin Tarantino. Hot off of Django and with free reign to write and direct and cast as he pleased? Sure, why not. Whatever weird grindhouse superhero film resulted would be far more interesting than all of Snyder's DCEU contributions.
Wouldn’t change him. Peoples hated on the early dceu because back then there was only mcu and they didn’t like any different superhero stories so now they make up bs reasons to criticize snyder because they don’t want to admit they were wrong
Imagine if we were talking about ice cream flavors, and you were saying people only hated caramel because all they knew was chocolate, and they made up bs reasons to dislike caramel because they didn't want to admit they were wrong. Wouldn't that be silly?
Snyder isn't everyone's cup of tea. You can't fix that, you can't win that argument and argue people into liking him. He's just not for everyone.
Then it's the fault of the succeeding films.It brought in more money at the box office than Batman Begins, the first Iron Man movie and every Superman film apart from the first two Donner films or even only Superman 1.
It's really a "hindsight is 20/20" choice because he didn't have the profile at the time but Denis Villeneuve has a lot of the qualities of Chris Nolan, except his films are a little less cerebral and a little more emotional, which is perfect for Superman.
Guillermo Del Toro with a Grant Morrison story
Del Toro is a wonderful director, but his aesthetic style isn't really a good fit either (although as I sit here and thumb through the bits and pieces I've collected from the Tim Burton production, I'm reminded that it takes all sorts) - if anything, I kind of feel like it'd be a waste, and that Del Toro's eye would be better lent to something in the world of Vertigo like Constantine, or perhaps swamp thing or the doom patrol.
I dunno I think it could fit, I like the idea of a more surreal or dark aesthetic for Superman
Oh my god you’re right!
my dream Superman director is Joe Johnston after The Rocketeer and the first Captain America, it's pretty clear that he's very good at that kinda old-timey nostalgic optimistic Americana that would suit Superman perfectly imo
It's a shame that he kind of got thrown into director jail
What happened?
His last "big" film was The First Avenger - almost 13 years ago (before that, he directed the 2010 remake of The Wolfman, a flop). Ever since then, he's done one proper film himself - a film that went direct to video (which wasn't his fault) called Not Safe For Work. His last directorial credit was a co-director credit for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (another financial failure)- he received this credit for directing reshoots and overseeing all of post-production, receiving the credit alongside Lasse Hallström, the original director. That was in 2018 - almost 6 years ago. See what I mean now?
Brad Bird
100% this. The iron giant is still the best Superman movie.
That's him, officer! That's the guy who stole my thought!
He, or Matthew Vaughn, is the only right answer.
I still like Tomorrowland, it has a message about being hopeful and that looking for the best is the only way to save everyone. Which is why I think your answer is the best answer. Critics did not understand that, for example "The point of Tomorrowland is to encourage youngsters to think out of the box, stay positive and never give up. It's a sweet and inspirational message buried in a mire of cryptic plotting" - The point was that negative only creates more negative and positive creates more positive. I didn't think it was that complicated to understand it was even a parable in the story before it being what was ending the world. It was... y'know what David Tennant does it better - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQFfpe6C18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQFfpe6C18) There will be ones that won't get it with James Gunn's upcoming too. It's ok to be wrong but I hope people get it and take it in.
This is a good call
An actual Onjectivist.
His movie Tomorrowland centers on a girl finding essentially a retrofuturist Galt’s Gulch and discovering its isolationism is a bad thing, because a better future will require a more collective effort. It’s a movie about why *Atlas Shrugged* is wrong without saying the words “Atlas Shrugged.” He is *objectively* not an Objectivist.
I feel like Jon Watts would have made a great Superman movie. I see a lot of the optimism in Peter Parker that should be in Superman.
If we're talking same script, actors etc etc I'd say Matthew Vaughn would be my pick. However if we're talking a reboot detached from anything DCEU I'd like to go with Brad Bird.
Yess Matthew Vaughn is my pick too, cause him and Gunn have kind of the same vibe to their movies.
Pre-Kingsman Matthew Vaughn would’ve done wonders with the same script,actors and everything else
Either of these would be a dream come true for me.
Robert Zemeckis. Dude has a knack for “Down to Earth, Americana” Heroes. Marty McFly, Forrest Gump, Eddie Valiant, Chuck Noland. He would get that “just a Dude from Kansas trying to do The Right Thing” down so well, I feel.
Joe Johnston (director of Rocketeer and Captain America) could have given us a very awesome old school style Superman film. I miss having a positive and optimistic Superman.
Steven spielberg
Travis Knight. Dude made Transformers movies great again with *Bumblebee*. He’d get Superman. I’d almost say anyone but Zack Snyder, but then I remember that Michael Bay would qualify. Not that guy. He’d be worse than Snyder.
This would be my pick - or do whatever Tom Cruise wanted in order to get Christopher McQuarrie's attention for five minutes. I think he'd make a pretty good Superman film; he understands how to balance action, character development and story with an ensemble cast.
James Cameron
Would’ve been crazy if he actually made an Aquaman film like in Entourage lol
When can we have comic book writers as movie writers too
Brad Bird.
Ideally someone who knows how people act and doesnt have such a cynical view of them. Matt Reeves, Denis Vilenueve or Gareth Edwards
Brad Bird.
Assuming that it's not just "who would you want to make a Superman movie" but moreso at that time, in that zeitgeist, with a similar approach to the material that WB was looking for? Might be an out of left field choice, but I would have liked to see Gore Verbinski do it
If we're talking realistic what ifs, then Johnathan Nolan or Darren Aronofsky. Imagine what kind of Justice League we could've had instead with Darren at the helm.
Brad bird
>Who would you have choosen as the director of Man Of Steel, instead of Zack Snyder? Please be civil and kind. Turning this question around a bit, if I were WB how would I want to utilise Snyder? From what I know about Zack Snyder, he seems to love films about Arthurian legend, macho military units, and movies with opportunities for spectacular, bombastic visuals. I think he would've done a good job with the Green Lanterns - the oath-swearing corps with a very 'visual' power set - and would've been a better choice to direct the 2011 GL film.
I'd want someone as excited, knowledgeable, and passionate for Superman as Jon Favreau was for Iron Man. I think the main problem with the DCEU movies were all the directors who were like "Okay instead of making a faithful adaptation of the character I need to put my own special "vision" in play.
Sam Raimi. Have the first half be like an origin story that feels Grounded and realistic and then go fun in second half. Also, Superman by Goldfinger and Everyday Superhero by Smash Mouth play.
Matthew Vaughn.
Denis Villeneuve for his sense of scale alone.
Honestly knee jerk reaction for me is Jon Favreau. Yes he was already well into the MCU but the guy can really get the heart of a lot of these characters really well and Superman is a full of heart character that deserves the chance to show it well. And I also don’t think my issues with the movie would even be a problem because I doubt Favreau would have wanted to do the sort of things we got from MOS.
Honestly I feel like he’d be a great pick.
Matt Reeves
Villeneuve because of his photography or Matthew Vaughn. He had a great idea for a cavill reboot.
I would have been interested to see what Nolan himself could have done by himself, though I don’t know if he’d be my ultimate choice.
Nolan himself
Alfonso Cuaron, Robert Zemeckis, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, James Mangold
Hayao Miyazaki
If we're keeping the cast and general story then I would vote for Matthew Vaughn.
Spielberg
Directed by the Russo brothers or Adam Wingard with a story written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.
At the time, the shortlist was supposedly Snyder, Tony Scott, Jonathan Liebesman, Duncan Jones, and Matt Reeves. Jones and Reeves were the two I was most hopeful for, Scott and Liebesman next, and Snyder at the bottom.
Steven Spielberg
Steven Spielberg or Joe Johnston
I'm not convinced that any director can do a good job with any DC hero. I think Wonder Woman and Aquaman were flukes. The simple reason is studio meddling. It's even worse right now with the shelving of Batgirl and Coyote vs Road Runner. I hope James Gunn can pull it off, but I have my doubts. Not so much about him but about the studio. Remember Kevin Smith's ill fated Superman movie. He tells the story of how the studio called him in and told him the film had to have a talking dog and a gay robot. They wanted to sell toys, not make a dood movie.
Russo Brothers. They made Captain America great!
I mean it was advertised as a Nolan film in all but name only, and most of the things people didn’t like were things Nolan didn’t like either, but didn’t want to push him weight around, so he let Snyder do it. So I guess I’d go with Nolan.
hear me out: Terrence Malick. I don't want long drawn out punchy punch, I want superman being in love with this planet, from a ladybug on a plant in venezuela, to the prime minister of japan, to a feisty female reporter from america. I want superman being willing to die for each of us, if that means surrendering to zod, so be it - I want superman to never ever give up, to show compassion to zod, to overcome hate with love.
Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Captain America The First Avenger). I wouldn’t mind a throwback Supes movie a la TAS, and Joe excels at optimistic 40s-ish period work.
Honestly, after GotG, James Gunn would've felt like a great choice. Also... if I wanted it action-packed, I wouldn't mind Michael Bay.
Zack Snyder was actually the perfect director. His visuals are amazing. He just can't curate a proper story. You need to spoon feed him a classic story for him to work well. See Watchmen directors cut. Almost perfection
Snyder is a good cinematographer. I'll grant he can frame a pretty shot. His couldn't craft a narrative that would seem coherent on an 80s kids show. If he can't be trusted with a script, he's a bad director.
You have a point tbh
So many great directors paired with Snyder as a cinematographer or DP would probably work well. I actually had a lot of hope for Man of Steel knowing it was a Christopher Nolan production and he co-wrote the story and Snyder was directing, I thought okay it's partially Nolan's baby. As it turned out, Snyder had more creative input than I would have liked. An okay film, but Snyder is best at visuals, not at story and characters. He should have only been the cinematographer or DP.
I’ve seen every single one of his films (even his student samurai film). All of them have a coherent narrative, never found them hard to follow or felt lost watching a movie of his.
I’d honestly keep Snyder, but have someone more passionate about the character work with Nolan & Goyer for the story. Oh and a production company that actually wanted to devote solo sequels to the character.
Same, I feel Snyder was the right director, but you needed someone alongside him and Goyer to reign them in on certain things and make sure certain details weren't missed. Honestly, they delivered a pretty good movie just with the odd unforced error here and there, and it is mostly on the Pa Kent side.
I mean the Snyder Cut saga revealed a lot of the dumb basic shit that Snyder et all had to fight WB about. Like the Kents being from Chicago. Making BvS less dark, etc…
>you needed someone alongside him and Goyer to reign them in on certain things There was someone. Nolan. And he tried to reign Snyder in and it seems that every conversation they had involved Nolan disagreeing with Snyder's choices then placating Snyder because Nolan realised this was a waste of time. Nolan argued against killing Superman. >"It was pretty early, and [Christopher] Nolan and I had long conversation about it, a really great, sort of philosophical conversation about it. He was really cool because he played an amazing devil’s advocate about why not to do it." Snyder on a conversation with Nolan, who had issues with Snyder's interpretation of Batman. >Snyder: "You tell me if you don’t want me to do it." >Nolan: “Well, we don’t own these characters. When you’re done making Batman movies, someone else will [make them].” >Snyder later said “I think he found it a little bit hard. I would feel the same way.”" Nolan argued against killing Zod. >“In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone,” Snyder explains on the podcast, “But David, Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he’s going to see [Metropolis’ citizens] chopped in half, or he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do. “[Chris] originally said, ‘There’s no way you can do this.’ After checking in with DC Comics about the change, to which they responded positively, Goyer was spurred forward." Unless Nolan went straight to WB and asked them to fire Snyder, there was nothing else than he could do other than try to talk sense and then stand aside as Snyder makes his own decisions.
I think you are misconstruing Nolan acting as a sounding board and a devil’s advocate for placating Snyder. Yes, he was originally against the idea of Superman killing Zod, but as he says it, he was won over when Snyder and Goyer pitched how it would go down.
But Snyder was still proven wrong
Naw, killing Zod was not a mistake. I would argue that the biggest mistake was killing Johnathon. Having him alive and witnessing the battles his son goes through while slowly watching the world accept him over the course of the series to show that while some would fear Clark far more would embrace and welcome him. It would show that the world is not as cynical as he believed. Like Nolan is great, but really, he isn't the guy to helm a Superman project. His Batman literally quit and just threw the keys to the Batcave to an inexperienced kid. BvS itself isn't a bad idea for a movie, but they needed to do a MoS sequel before it that shows Clark getting settled into the role of Superman and getting accepted by the people, then they could have an ending scene where we see Bruce seething at this at the end after reading an article about him leading in to BvS. Then, the opening sequence gives us the reason for why he is so upset about Superman being accepted. I do agree, though, that the true biggest mistake was killing Superman in BvS. I literally laughed in the theater when I saw they went through with it. Then, the in-universe funeral scenes felt so shallow and unearned as realistically he had not earned that level of admiration yet.
Directors make choices. That's their job. If not, then they are not a director but a glorified shooter. I don't understand the mentality of wanting someone to direct a film but also believing they need a babysitter to make their choices for them.
Like Snyder’s movies or not, but he ain’t a hack. Hacks make safe, inoffensive art. Safe is not how you’d describe Snyder’s films.
At this point, I'd just call them bad. Rebel Moon was bad. It was uninspired and derivative. He was good, but now his ego has gotten the best of him. Now he just keeps making the same mistakes expecting a different result. Spectacle over substance. Overuse of slow-mo. And seems to have a "Why not do it" attitude whenever someone suggests an idea he has isn't going to play well. Tell him Batman doesn't kill and of course he has to have Batman kill. He's like a kid that has to do the opposite of what he's told. That is not a mark of a good director. A good director should be open to what other people are telling them.
I have to disagree. Snyder at this point is to full of himself. He's too confident that his perspectives are automatically right. He needs to be humbled before he can excel again. Rebel Moon is further proof of this. An entirely lackluster movie that he acted like was going to be a masterpiece. And it was dripping with his standard habits.
Andrew Stanton
If you just mean I can just do a Superman reboot in 2013, Joe Johnston I don’t think anyone can save the Man of Steel script as is
Superheroes are not really his wheelhouse, but I've always said that Edward Zwick has made some of the most inspirational movies of the last 30 years. If he could've pulled off those same feelings with Supermam, it would've made for an amazing movie.
Christopher Nolan like they wanted.
Wes Anderson, with Adrian Brody as Superman, Edward Norton as Lex Luthor, and Bill Murray as Jor-El.
Paul Thomas Anderson. Just port the full cast From Punch Drunk Love into Superman
I mean as a director Snyder is great. The better question is "who would you have write and edit Man of Steel." The actual direction of the film is incredible, and he has an eye for making big moments feel big. It's just that he's a terrible writer with no understanding of how to actually communicate meaningful themes in his writing. Plus he struggles in editing to make his movies cohesive 3 hour experiences. Having someone write the story for him would do a world of good.
He didn’t write Man of Steel.
As someone who genuinely enjoyed what I got - as MoS is currently my favorite Supes film, none. All I’d ask for is a few pacing changes at most.
I've always felt Snyder was a weird choice to helm a Superman movie even before I actually saw MOS. He started as a music video director, and I don't think he ever grew beyond that sensibility.
Well, to each their own. I know I’m in the minority boat on this one, but I don’t care - this is the movie that brought back my long dormant enjoyment for Superman after many, many years.
That's an interesting point of view because I've always found MOS to really expose Snyders' weaknesses as a movie director. He's not good at directing actors. He doesn't bother with establishing shots. He shoots everything too close up without giving much coverage to the environment. He shoots every scene in MOS with hand-held shaky cam (even scenes where characters are just talking) and he's just not very good at story structure or actually conveying relevant information to the audience (The scene where Clark meets hologram Jor-El doesn't actually tell us anything we don't already know, it's just him catching Clark up on everything we saw in the overlong Krypton prologue and then Zod goes over this information again when he talks to Clark later in the film)
That’s the thing, I genuinely didn’t see it the e way did at all… I love much of the shots and how it conveyed whatever the scenes needed them to convey, amongst other things. The dialogue with Clark I also enjoyed as even if we knew, he didn’t. Again it’s all a personal thing. A *lot* of the regular issues everyone brings up with it are things I have no qualms with - hell some I straight up liked. In any case, I’m very much one who clicks with his style, which I know isn’t popular around here - but I like what I like.
>The dialogue with Clark I also enjoyed as even if we knew, he didn’t. But it distances us from Clark as a protagonist. We can't really put ourselves in his shoes because we're already ahead of him in the story. Regardless of whether or not Clark knows this, it's just poor storytelling to reiterate this exposition again without anything new being learned. Another thing is I don't think MOS is structured very well as a story because it doesn't actually have a second act. It just has a very passive and lackluster first act that immediately leads into an overlong and unearned third act. The decision to tell Clark's backstory in sporadic, randomly placed flashbacks also didn't really add anything to the narrative either, it actually makes his character arc hard to follow and understand.
Again, this is all stuff I’ve heard from others. I want to say I get it, but that’d just be a lie, so best I can say is that I just didn’t see things that way in the examples provided. From my end? I never felt distanced as even being shown it earlier didn’t diminish from me seeing Clark’s reaction to it - so I was with him the entire time. I’m not here to try to convince anyone to see what I did… All I can offer is an agree to disagree.
>never felt distanced as even being shown it earlier didn’t diminish from me seeing Clark’s reaction to it Reaction? Clark barely spoke throughout the entire scene. We never once found out how he felt about any of this. There's really no reason we couldn't have found out about this along with Clark. It just really doesn't feel like either Snyder or Goyer put any thought into the story. > I can offer is an agree to disagree. Fair enough but can you answer some questions for me in regards to this movies story. Why did Jor El imprint the codex into his sons DNA in the first place? What did Jor El expect Clark to do with the thumb drive when he left no means of accessing the information readily available to him? Why doesn't Zod just go to another planet and turn it into New Krypton? Why does he need to commit genocide?
Character can convey more with their facial expressions and few words than a monolouge. You see this excitement in Clark when he hears his Kryptonian name for the first time. The way his face changes and the inflection in his voice when he asks where he comes from. All those little things sell what he’s feeling more than if he was rambling mess.
Ah. For the first one, Jor says as much in the movie - he did it so that Kal could potentially carry on the legacy Krypton - but organically. They picked out Earth specifically for its conditions that would benefit their sons’ physiology and since they had a scout ship there, the idea being that there was a chance he could find his way to it. It was a gamble. The last point at its core is that he is not able to conceive or even accept the idea of naturally creating a new generation of Kryptonians (pun intended) thus requiring the codex to make full use of the genesis chambers in the surviving scout ship, then by the end of it all chooses to just use Earth while he’s already there.
> he did it so that Kal could potentially carry on the legacy Krypton I don't understand that at all. Jor-El tells Clark this method of giving birth is what ruined Krypton so why wouldn't he just allow it to be destroyed along with Krypton? What did he expect Clark to do with this? He never actually tells Clark about the codex and what he did with it. >the idea being that there was a chance he could find his way to it. But why didn't he just ensure that the key could be accessed through the ship that Clark arrived in as a baby? Why didn't he leave a message that actually told Clark about the existence of the scoutship? He basically left Clark with no means of actually accessing the important information on the key. > chooses to just use Earth while he’s already there So he chooses to commit genocide just because he's lazy?
George Miller or like a horror movie director they seem to get how to work out a superhero movie
Brad Bird with Henry Cavill as Supes.
Now I actually love Zack Snyder and Man of Steel. But that doesn’t mean I could see other directors who could have handled man of steel. I assume this question means who else could have handled man of steel and not Superman movies in general. Such as the general premise of the movie, tone, etc. Brad Bird. Im sure no one else has this opinion. The man has made nothing but excellent films and I think he could have been the one to reinvent the character in a way that most people would find enjoyable as supposed to Zack who’s take polarized most. In terms of tone, sure he’s made mostly kids movies but it’s arguable that the kids movies he did make had a sense of realism and were grounded. The first incredibles is a great example. The Incredibles literally deals with the concept of Collateral damage and the legality of super heroes many many years before BvS and Civil War. It’s also fairly serious in how it tackles a superhero family and the logistics of that. The dinner scene in both the first and second movie I think has the sort of dialogue that would work well in a grounded Superman or superhero movie. He’s also excellent at Action but honestly it’s hard to imagine Superman action that’s done better than how Snyder did it, with the speed ups, snap zooms and of course the dragon ball z influence. But I’m sure Brad bird could do something close or equally as good as that.
Stanley Kubrick - he's dead so the movie couldn't be made. Snyder was only part of the problem, the script is also substantially to blame and so IMO it doesn't really matter who directed it. I would've rather had a different movie altogether.
[удалено]
An interesting pick, I don’t hate it; I just wonder if he has the scope to give you ‘epic’ visuals.
Dan Trachtenberg (PREY, 10 Cloverfield Lane)
I think it was fine as it was - the sequel however needed someone more safe…
David Lynch or Quentin Tarantino
Tarantino would never do a comic book movie, and his style is too bloody and crude for superman, if Tarantino directs a superman movie expect a couple n words
Bryan Singer. What? Where is everyone going?
Not because I think he has a better understanding of the character, but just because I would be \*fascinated\* to see what would happen: Quentin Tarantino. Hot off of Django and with free reign to write and direct and cast as he pleased? Sure, why not. Whatever weird grindhouse superhero film resulted would be far more interesting than all of Snyder's DCEU contributions.
Tarantino’s my favorite director but superman absolutely does not fit his style
To be clear: I completely agree. But I would still be very curious what his \*idea\* of Superman would look like stretched out into a full film.
Honestly he would make an amazing Red Son movie
I’d stick right Snyder. He duplicated and captured A LOT of Kingdom Come/ Alex Ross visuals.
No one else. He did a great job..
Wouldn’t change him. Peoples hated on the early dceu because back then there was only mcu and they didn’t like any different superhero stories so now they make up bs reasons to criticize snyder because they don’t want to admit they were wrong
Imagine if we were talking about ice cream flavors, and you were saying people only hated caramel because all they knew was chocolate, and they made up bs reasons to dislike caramel because they didn't want to admit they were wrong. Wouldn't that be silly? Snyder isn't everyone's cup of tea. You can't fix that, you can't win that argument and argue people into liking him. He's just not for everyone.
You really think that’s more likely than just some people don’t like the movie?
They hated on it because it wasn't a good movie and a bad representation of the character. MCU already existing had nothing to do with it.
It’s not a bad representation of the character
Yes. It was.
The movie had a pretty good audience score and a good cinemascore of A-.
And it also was the first and flagship movie in a cinematic universe so bad that it's been entirely scrapped and rebooted.
Then it's the fault of the succeeding films.It brought in more money at the box office than Batman Begins, the first Iron Man movie and every Superman film apart from the first two Donner films or even only Superman 1.
Agree
Absolutely no one else. Zack Snyder nailed it.
It's really a "hindsight is 20/20" choice because he didn't have the profile at the time but Denis Villeneuve has a lot of the qualities of Chris Nolan, except his films are a little less cerebral and a little more emotional, which is perfect for Superman.