Zack Snyder Full Interview

Some VERY interesting things that certain sites seemed to ignore:

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2010/11/zack-snyder-confirms-new-super.html

ABOUT a month ago, the director's chair for the next Superman movie seemed to be the hottest hotseat in town.

If reports are to be believed, Warner Bros conducted a wide-ranging search, with contenders including Ben Affleck, Guillermo del Toro, Robert Zemeckis, Tony Scott, Matt Reeves, Jonathan Liebesman, Zack Snyder, Duncan Jones and Darren Aronofsky.

Zemeckis this week downplayed his involvement, blaming an internet frenzy for hyping it out of control. But he admits he was approached, and told MTV: "When they asked if I wanted to make the...what is it?... seventeenth version of Superman, I said, 'No, I don't think so.' I passed on that faster than a speeding bullet."

Zack Snyder, however, didn't say 'no' and at the start of October was announced as the director tasked with bringing the hero to a 21st century audience.

Already there have been conflicting reports of what the new film - tentatively called Superman: The Man of Steel - will involve. Snyder was quoted as saying it's about the character's early years but actor Armie Hammer - who's among those on fanboy wishlists - contradicted this by claiming the studio wants an older actor aged 35-40.

Snyder has now given a few more clues and details about the project in an interview with Empire magazine.

He said: "The script that Chris [Nolan] and David Goyer, the idea they came up with, for me is fun to talk about and it's got a lot of awesome stuff in it. It's easy to riff on and explore. I was really optimistic about the ideas that they have laid out in there. I was pretty excited about it once I had gotten a handle on the idea."

Snyder (pictured below) elaborated: "It's a different story. I won't say there's a break from the canon or anything like that but there definitely is an approach that makes you go 'Okay, that's a way to get at it.'

"It's certainly respectful. David is very respectful of the canon and stuff like that. It has its roots in the canon, it has a point of view about who he is."

He believes it isn't based on a particular run of comics and says it's too early to talk about his take on the character and the rumours that it will be focus on the hero's early years.

But he does make it clear that this is a restart for the franchise: "If reboot means to act as if there were no movies before, then it's a reboot. It owes nothing to the movies of the past."

Zack adds that "the internet has no idea what's going on" behind the scenes of the production and says a suggestion that Zod is the villain is "just wrong."

He hasn't yet thought about casting, he reveals, and is unaware of a campaign to get Brandon Routh back in the role, despite a tabloid report that said Snyder acknowledged the 'groundswell' of support for that actor and would reconsider him.

This latest interview does at least clear up some of the inaccuracies travelling round the interwebs.

We know now for certain the project is a reboot unrelated to previous films, that Zod isn't the villain, and that Snyder is not aware of the Routh lobbying and nor has he even considered casting.

Therefore, it's probably safe to conclude that bringing back someone from a previous Superman incarnation can be well and truly ruled out.

LOVE the bold parts.

Now do you see why I never believed BJ was coming back?

I know I alluded to 'Steve' in the other thread. The article here seems more fleshed out than the one I linked. So.........first of all, reboot is self-explanatory. No continuity from Donnerverse, no actors from Donnerverse, etc., etc. The canon that it will respect is DC COMICS CANON, not Donnerverse and/or SINGERMAN.

So..........no more Brandon 'BJ' Routhman (yet the apologists will STILL cling to hope). And the reason I bring 'Steve' up is this. He claimed to have ALL of the inside dope. Remember that Snyder IS considering 'BJ', according to 'Steve', & that Tom Welling is ALSO being considered. This was also gonna be a ONE-SHOT DEAL, according to 'Steve', to basically 'kill off' Superman due to WB not standing a chance of winning the lawsuit. Here, let me copy & paste some of 'Steve's' comments from that Countingdown link:

http://www.countingdown.com/movies/1378/board?viewpost=4114772

And now for MULTIPLE turds:

"BatSTUD is about to have a stroke...

1. Snyder tossed Goyer's script in the trash and is starting over. Was the best possible move I've heard so far.

2. Routh is now on the short list of actors after Snyder was pointed to a website dedicated to "Bring Back Routh". This would be the worst possible news I heard so far.

There's much more developing but I can't confirm any of it yet... Stay tuned..."

http://www.countingdown.com/movies/1378/board?viewpost=4115000

""**Updated (or should I say corrected)

Okay, recently Snyder proclaimed the new Superman film would focus on his early years. But more recently, Armie Hammer, who was cast as Batman in George Miller's horrible idea of a Justice League film, inquired about the role and says he was told they were going with an "older" version of the character. So, who's lying?? Or are both telling the truth?? Lose you did I?? You're not alone...

Here's what I've got...

The story has gone from his prime years (Goyer and Nolan), back to his early years (Snyder), forward to his later years (Snyder and Nolan), and back again because they're still trying to figure out which would work. BUT WAIT! There's another idea being floated that makes it a nearly 3hr film of an older Superman reflecting on his life after those he loved are gone. Why? Because as I've said many times, this is NOT a reboot. It will be a ONE SHOT DEAL... No sequels.. Nolan is not only ending his Batman (and I do mean "ending" so nobody can pick up where he leaves off) and WB needs to end Superman because the negotiating is finished and they WILL BE losing the rights in Oct 2013. The families don't want the money. They want the character. Period.

But who will be the next Superman you ask?? Well, there's a varied list right now and it looks something like this...

Tom Welling (becoming more likely by the day due the rights issue), Brandon Routh (I know, I hate this too but he made the last film), Zachary Levi, Jon Hamm, and believe it or not Jeffrey Dean Morgan (who was in Snyder's Watchmen and is well liked by the director).

There will be a lot coming out about this and very soon. Look for a production date to start right around the same time as Batman 3.

I just wish they'd make up their minds and do it already before nobody cares anymore..."

There's MORE little 'nuggets' from 'Steve' but I think you get the picture? Gee, funny how what Snyder says seems to TOTALLY contradict what 'Steve' said. HEY! Snyder even says it's the RE-START of the franchise, not a one-shot deal!

'Steve', YOUR move!

Very good interview. I liked how clear zack was its going to be new and fresh clean start this is what supes needs.

So much of what Stevearchangel is reporting just doesn't add up. If it's to be a reboot (new everything), then Welling is out too. 2+2=4.

It doesn't matter if WB is losing the rights to the character in the near future, if they had any brains at all, they'd leave room for a sequel in case they do somehow come out on top. And really, any movie the Siegel estate licenses will have to use a Superman who can only leap an 8th of a mile and who fights crooked landlords. Call me crazy but that doesn't seem like enough to build a movie around. Whether anybody likes it or not, WB (owning so much of the mythos) and the Siegels (owning the basic character itself) need each other.

There's probably more but there you go.

Even though this isn't mainly about Snyder it does refer to him so I'll post it here:

http://www.moviehole.net/201033129-what-would-doughertys-superman-sequel-have-been

I actually found this link at Superhero Hype. My point? Even Dougherty is STILL giving duh apologists hope that they'll receive their 'BJ' anyway, even if it's courtesy of Snyder. I mean, there's STILL hope, right? At least he'd like to THINK so. And Singer never gave ANY apologies for making this travesty. He said this was his intention the whole time, to make a 'romantic & nostalgic' movie. I guess that's what you get when you send a boy to do a man's job!

What gets me is that EUNUCH hasn't posted this article yet. What's wrong, Steve Eunuch, asleep at the wheel?

non_amos wrote:Even though this isn't mainly about Snyder it does refer to him so I'll post it here:

http://www.moviehole.net/201033129-what-would-doughertys-superman-sequel-have-been

I actually found this link at Superhero Hype. My point? Even Dougherty is STILL giving duh apologists hope that they'll receive their 'BJ' anyway, even if it's courtesy of Snyder. I mean, there's STILL hope, right? At least he'd like to THINK so. And Singer never gave ANY apologies for making this travesty. He said this was his intention the whole time, to make a 'romantic & nostalgic' movie. I guess that's what you get when you send a boy to do a man's job!

What gets me is that EUNUCH hasn't posted this article yet. What's wrong, Steve Eunuch, asleep at the wheel?

That article is worth reading just for the reprinted Singer quote where it is once again proven that the man never understood the characters.

He also doesn't understand basic storytelling either. He didn't "establish" the characters in Singerman. He took what he thought he saw in Superman II, added in a bunch of "vague history" and gave us the characters without any introduction. He made a sequel (to something, hell if I know what), not an introduction.

Read that article earlier interesting thoughts. But ya that guy shouldn't have said routh has a chance. We know its not going to happen.

As I mention on another thread, Michael Dougherty co-writer of "Superman Returns" revealed that he and others had plan for a possible SR sequel and so far he stated that they were planning on making a ACTION oriented film probably just to fill in that gap that the first film was lacking. It was also planned to put a Kryptonian invasion but not necessarily a hostel one and they were even plans on bringing Brainiac into the mix but that part was still debatable at that time.

I'm still not even sure if whats been said is true or not and even if it were I don't think it still be good enough nor will it make up for the mess that the last film left behind!

non_amos wrote:Even though this isn't mainly about Snyder it does refer to him so I'll post it here:

http://www.moviehole.net/201033129-what-would-doughertys-superman-sequel-have-been

I actually found this link at Superhero Hype. My point? Even Dougherty is STILL giving duh apologists hope that they'll receive their 'BJ' anyway, even if it's courtesy of Snyder. I mean, there's STILL hope, right? At least he'd like to THINK so. And Singer never gave ANY apologies for making this travesty. He said this was his intention the whole time, to make a 'romantic & nostalgic' movie. I guess that's what you get when you send a boy to do a man's job!

What gets me is that EUNUCH hasn't posted this article yet. What's wrong, Steve Eunuch, asleep at the wheel?

And of course the morons will ignore the words "thinks". As in "hopes". But this was one of the idiots who WROTE that POS, so what he "thinks" is IRRELEVANT.

non_amos wrote:What gets me is that EUNUCH hasn't posted this article yet. What's wrong, Steve Eunuch, asleep at the wheel?

Surprise, surprise....

No, he's quick off the mark, actually. Let's not forget that Eunuch greenlit the sequel to Singerman YEARS ago.

Eunuch HAS posted it now. Do you suppose he saw THIS site? Heh-heh!

probably so ap, they will probably think routh is going to get the role/test for them and wont believe he is out to we have our new superman.

non_amos wrote:Eunuch HAS posted it now. Do you suppose he saw THIS site? Heh-heh!

I guarantee you someone from there DID.