The producer and director had to make sure their pick for the Man of Steel looked the part - and insisted on putting him in the much-maligned suit Reeve's Superman wore.
Snyder tells Entertainment Weekly magazine, "If you can put on that suit and pull it off, that's an awesome achievement."
The Tudors star Cavill admits he was worried about what he'd look like in the replica outfit - because he'd lost all the muscle he'd gained for mythical action movie Immortals.
He tells the publication, "All I could think was, 'Oh, God, they're going to look at me and go: He's not Superman. Not a chance.'
"The actor inside me was going, 'You're not ready! You're not ready!'"
But 300 director Snyder was suitably impressed: "He walked out and no one laughed. Other actors put that suit on and it's a joke, even if they're great actors. Henry put it on, and he exuded this kind of crazy-calm confidence that just made me go, 'Wow. OK, this is Superman'."
In a shocking turn of events (at least to this comic book geek), Variety claims that Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures upcoming Superman reboot is ready to fly without Lois Lane. Instead, one lucky lady will play an undisclosed role as leading lady to Henry Cavill's Clark Kent in The Man of Steel.
According to the source, Alice Eve, Diane Kruger and Rosamund Pike are being considered by the studio for the part. These three bombshell's vary in age and experience, but one is likely to work with Zack Snyder on his highly anticipated film that Christopher Nolan is producing and his brother Jonah, along with veteran genre scribe/producer David Goyer, is writing.
Eve made lots of heads turn in breakout roles this year in WB's Sex and the City 2 and Paramount's She's Out Of My League. She's a real stunner and will certainly ensure that hordes of horny teen boys will flock to theaters come December 2012, when the film is set to release. On the other hand, both Pike and Kruger have cut their teeth on past big-budget productions. Pike starred as a villainess in 2002's James Bond entry Die Another Die in addition to the 2009 dud Surrogates. She's balanced out her resume with prestigious pictures like An Education, Pride and Prejudice and, most recently, Barney's Version.
Kruger is perhaps the most well known of them all, with credits including Troy, National Treasure and Inglourious Basterds under her belt. On February 18th, she co-stars in Warner's Unknown, opposite Liam Neeson. Having worked for the studio in the past, and taking into account her higher profile career, I'm going to call her the true front-runner in this high stakes race (at least until the next batch of potentials are announced).
After long speculation that found actors as wide ranging in age and experience as Jon Hamm and Armie Hammer rumored for the role, Henry Cavill of The Tudors fame has landed the lead in director Zack Snyder's highly anticipated Superman reboot tentatively titled The Man of Steel!
Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures have confirmed to Deadline that Cavill, who was once in the running to play James Bond and Batman in their respective recent reboots, emerged victorious in the quest to don the red, yellow and blue spandex in the film, which is due December 2012. He was also on the shortlist of actors to portray the Last Son of Krypton when Brett Ratner and McG were set to helm what turned into Bryan Singer's 2006 film Superman Returns; Brandon Routh wore the cape in that chapter of the superhero legacy.
Cavill just wrapped Immortals with director Tarsem Singh and The Cold Light of Day opposite Bruce Willis. Both films will hit theaters later this year, when the lucky young actor will begin production on the Christopher Nolan-produced sequel being written by David Goyer and Jonah Nolan. All eyes now turn to Clark Kent's favorite lady Lois Lane, a part I've long felt Anne Hathaway would be perfect for had she not taken the role of Selina Kyle in Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises.
What are your thoughts? How do you feel about Henry Cavill as Superman? Who should play Lois Lane? Tell us your thoughts!
The Moon director took himself out of the running for the film after meeting with the franchise's new mastermind, Christopher Nolan.
Jones tells CinemaBlend.com, "I think, maybe, I'm not quite ready for that scale of project and that scale of expectation from an audience that is already existing and is waiting to see the next generation of Superman film. It's a hard one.
"Superman was so big that I think I was a little intimidated by it and sort of backed out."
Fussy Jones also backed out of the chance to tackle comic book hero Judge Dredd on the big screen.
He adds, "I'm also a big Judge Dredd fan, which was another one that came my way... Judge Dredd, I really thought about and it ended up not being right for me because I had such strong feelings and opinions on what I wanted that film to be.
"Although I really like what they're going to do with it, it's not the film that I was going to make. So that one wasn't going to work out."
300 and Watchmen director Zack Snyder is now onboard the Superman projects, while Pete Travis is reworking Judge Dredd with actor Karl Urban.
I wish I could say I'm surprised at the news that director Gareth Edwards has been tapped to direct a remake of Godzilla (the original Toho creation, not the Roland Emmerich American abomination), but I'm not. This is Hollywood, after all; if you can't find the shortest straight line between two dots, you're fired.
Edwards made a movie called Monsters. Legendary Pictures wants to remake the king of all monsters. The shortest line between the two is Edwards. Duh. That's the cynic in me talking, of course. If it were any other studio, I'd let the cynic win out right off the bat, but this is Legendary Pictures we're talking about. It's not some mass-production studio that cranks movies out like a sausage factory. It's the defiant outfit that paired up Christopher Nolan with Batman, Spike Jonze with Where the Wild Things Are and Zack Snyder with Watchmen. While not all of the studio gambles pay off, its track record for matching bold, uniquely stylized directors with iconic cinematic material is simply unmatched in Hollywood these days. But is giving Godzilla to Gareth Edwards really thinking all that outside the box? That's not a slight against Edwards. I think he's a tremendous talent and I've been a huge and vocal supporter of Monsters since I was fortunate enough to attend the world premiere of it. Even with only one film under his belt, he's earned enough credit in my book to be a director I'll be keeping an excited eye out for for years to come. But that's the problem I have -- that Edwards has made only one film. Sure, it's a mighty impressive film, the production of which should inspire anyone who has ever wanted to make movies their own way, but he's still a very green director. My concern isn't that he's incapable of going from a $100,000 budget to a $100 million budget (I'm just guessing here, as the Godzilla budget hasn't been disclosed); it's that in the scheme of things, Edwards is actually a very safe bet. It isn't because he just made a giant monster movie so another one will be easy, either. It's because a Godzilla remake isn't all that exciting to begin with. He's a giant lizard that destroys cities. As long your Godzilla movie has a giant lizard destroying a city, 95 percent of your job is done already. That being the case, you need to make damn sure that the destruction is so awe-inspiring, so larger than life that you can't help but stare at it all slack-jawed. Naturally, the movie needs to be a special effects extravaganza, and once you're telling that kind of a story, who is doing the heavy lifting? The director? Or the special effects department? Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Edwards will do. I just don't want to be so quick to say a Godzilla remake is going to be OMGAMAZING simply because it's directed by a guy who made a low-budget monster movie. I can all too easily envision this being a case of a studio picking a unique directorial talent to make a not-so-unique movie. I doubt that at this stage in his career, Edwards has the confidence to throw any weight around against studio decisions. And what happened the last time Legendary Pictures hired a unique directorial talent to make a by-the-numbers movie? We got Jonah Hex, that's what happened. The Crank duo was brought in to make a grungy "superhero" flick about a merciless gunslinger. But their approach to the material was just too out-there for its star, so Legendary gave in, the two left the project and a no-frills replacement was brought in. The result was a no-frills movie that's dull as dishwater. I fear that's exactly what's going to happen here, only Edwards won't even need to leave the project for it to happen -- he already is the easily controlled director for hire. I hope that doesn't end up being the case, of course. The glimmer of hope I have comes from knowing that all deals are a two-way street. Edwards no doubt had gobs of projects thrown at him after Hollywood found out about him, so for him to choose Godzilla above all tells me that he feels he has something to bring to the project. But only time will tell how much of that the studio actually lets him bring.
Christopher Nolan, the brains behind the rebooted Batman franchise, is bringing the Man of Steel back to the big screen in a new installment following Bryan Singer's 2006 offering Superman Returns.
Nolan, who will act as a producer on the film, recently hired Watchmen moviemaker Zack Snyder to direct it, and Affleck has now revealed he was "tempted" by the job, but decided to leave the superhero movie to a director better acquainted with big budget blockbusters.
He tells Deadline.com, "The one benefit of having done all kinds of movies as an actor is, you learn the pros and cons of being tempted to do a really big movie because it costs a lot of money. With Superman, I think they're going to do a great version. Chris Nolan is brilliant and they've got a great director for it.
"I've love to do something like Blade Runner, but a lesson I've learned is to not look at movies based on budget, how much they'll spend on effects, or where they will shoot. Story is what's important. Also, there are a lot of guys ahead of me on the list to do epic effects movies."
Affleck previously donned the superhero's cape to play Superman actor George Reeves in 2006 film Hollywoodland.
By now you’ve no doubt heard the news that Zack Snyder has signed on to helm the upcoming Superman reboot, tentatively titled Superman: Man of Steel, and there has been a wide range of reactions to the news. Many longtime readers might imagine my initial reaction – after all, I’ve been a vocal critic of Snyder’s inability to grasp the art of adaptation, always tinkering with great stories to make them greater (and missing the mark.) Likewise, I’ve lately been rough on Christopher Nolan, arguing that his cold, clinical style and penchant for darker storylines and character arcs was an odd fit for the most colorful and inspirational of DC's superheroes. So why is it that I’m so happy Snyder has been signed?
You see, I’ve been married a while, and with my wife almost twice as long as that – and I’ve learned a thing or two about what makes a successful marriage. The best couples always consist of people whose personalities complement each other perfectly: One makes up for what the other one lacks. For instance, my wife has a head for dates and bill paying, while I barely know what day of the week it is on any given day, let alone the date. Meanwhile, my wife hates to cook, while I enjoy making elaborate dishes. What we end up with is a household that is never late paying the bills and has a hot meal waiting for my wife every day when she gets home from work.
And in the world of big-budget cinema, I cannot think of a better pairing than Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. Snyder’s an idea man, a visual master who can create elaborate tapestries of awesome out of a few actors and a green screen. No one can capture the look and feel of a comic book panel – nailing the emotional beat contained therein – like Snyder. And his action scenes ... man, oh, man, his action scenes are incredible. But where Snyder fails is when it comes to story. He has a history of taking incredible comic book storylines and gutting them to tell the story he would prefer, ending up missing the power of what his films could have been.
Nolan, on the other hand, is a story-and-log man. He loves constructing cinematic puzzles in which each and every piece has a brilliant and individual function. This is the guy who refused to give Batman a grappling hook until his team could come up with a realistic way to make it work and be 100 percent logical. That’s who he is; he must understand the 'how' and 'why' of everything and know that it all serves the purpose of leading to a killer, mind-blowing ending. His failing is when it comes to imagination – he’s a guy who made a movie about dreams in which everyone’s dreams looked exactly the same. (Ahem, like James Bond movies.)
So we have a director with untold reserves of imagination, being overseen by a producer who will make sure every element of the story exists to tell a fully developed, incredible tale that will completely pay off in the end. Two geniuses each placed with someone who completes them. My question isn’t whether or not this is the best producer/director pairing of the modern age, but rather: How many movies can we sign these two up to make together?
As it turns out, Batman and Superman is NOT the best team-up the brain-trust at Warner Bros. could think up. Bring on the Man of Steel.
I've been kind of out of the loop on movie news due to my post-Fantastic Fest hangover, so yesterday afternoon I had no idea why my Twitter feed was suddenly all aflutter with people complaining about how bad of a filmmaker Zack Snyder is. I didn't think much of it at the time and just chalked it up to yet another spate of angry grumbling on Twitter. It wasn't until the evening that I realized why people were complaining: Warner Bros. had just assigned Zack Snyder as the director of their upcoming Superman reboot. I instantly understood why people were complaining.
Actually, I should clarify. I understood that Superman was the reason people were complaining about Snyder; I still don't understand why people are complaining about Snyder as a director.
Before digging into the merits of Snyder as a filmmaker, though, let's consider the alternatives. Tony Scott, Matt Reeves, Duncan Jones and Jonathan Liebesman were all names being floated around at Warner Bros. as possible heirs to the Superman throne. Would any of those directors really be a better alternative to Snyder? Considering how many cameras and edits Scott uses, I can't even imagine that he and producer Christopher Nolan -- a man whose films are known for meticulous camera setups and fairly traditional editing -- would have ever agreed on anything. Does anyone really want a Superman that's edited together like a Tony Scott movie? Hell, I barely want Tony Scott movies edited together like Tony Scott movies.
And really, Scott was the only plausible alternative. As much of a fan as I am of Matt Reeves (Let Me In is pretty damned good) and Duncan Jones' work (Moon is a love note to sci-fi geeks like me), I'd rather see both of them escalate towards big-budget blockbusters instead of being tossed in. And Jonathan Liebesman, as great as a guy I've heard he is, just doesn't have the track record to warrant him captaining a film as high-profile as this.
So of all who were considered, it's only logical that Snyder's name rose to the top. Yet I still don't understand the disdain for the man that comes from film fanboys. It must be solely because of 300's visual style -- I can't think of any other reason. His remake of Dawn of the Dead has grown dear to the hearts of geeks everywhere, so it can't be that. Watchmen is a pretty divisive film, but even still, those who hate it don't hate all of it. People tend to walk through his adaptation of such a holy graphic novel as though they were walking through an apple orchard, plucking down the individual fruit that looks most appealing to them. Even if you don't like everything on display, there has to be a handful of elements in Watchmen that you like; if there aren't, I simply don't understand why you watch movies.
Then there is his latest film, Legend of the Guardians. It's an animated kids film about fighting owls on a life-or-death adventure. It's dark and gloomy and basically an antidote to the recent glut of animated films out of Hollywood that are all happy-go-lucky, smirks and smiles and so-innocent-no-one-can-complain kids flicks. The derision that movie has received by people who haven't seen it just does not make sense to me. It's a gorgeous, original and thrilling alternative to the cookie-cutter flicks the rest of the industry makes, but because it's got owls who fight and Snyder's name attached to it, it's not cool enough of for your approval. Get off your high horse, you're breaking its back trying to ride it onto the anti-Snyder bandwagon.
People complain that there's no originality in Hollywood, that every movie looks the same and that the Golden Era of the blockbuster ended years ago. And yet Snyder receives very little applause from his core fanbase for delivering films that are original, that don't look like every movie on the block, and that try to make lining up at a movie theater on opening night worth the wait and the $10 price tag.
Zack Snyder is a director that has proven time after time he cares more about building icons than he does on appeasing the widest possible demographic. How does that not make him an ideal candidate for a new Superman film? And with Nolan at his side overseeing the entire thing? I struggle to think of a better choice.
If you want safe, simple blockbusters, go seek out Brett Ratner or Len Wiseman or Louis Leterrier or Tony Scott or Sam Raimi. Don't demand films with edge and verve and style and then shun one of the few people in Hollywood who makes them. Not only does that make little sense, but it makes you a hypocrite.
Visionary WATCHMEN and 300 moviemaker ZACK SNYDER has signed on to direct the new Superman film. Batman Begins screenwriter David S. Goyer is working on a new script based on a story conceived by Goyer and Christopher Nolan. Nolan is producing the film with his wife and partner Emma Thomas and Snyder's wife Deborah.
After months of speculation, Warner Bros. has chosen Zack Snyder to direct its new take on Superman. Christopher Nolan is producing the reported $250 million production that David Goyer and his brother Jonathan wrote. The film is tentatively titled The Man Of Steel and will unfurl an epic new chapter in the history of The Last Son Of Krypton.
Many names were considered for the post, including Darren Aronofsky, Matt Reeves, Tony Scott and Duncan Jones (although I called Snyder the most likely candidate last week.) As stated before, Snyder, who has made 300, Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians and Sucker Punch at the studio, was the favorite pick as he's used to productions of Superman's size.
The studio is targeting a December 2012 release, which would see Nolan's third Batman film and this picture released just six months apart - a first for Warner's, DC Entertainment and the world. Now if only Snyder can pull his Sucker Punch star Jon Hamm into the mix...