Nolan to mentor Superman reboot

[thecolorsblend]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015706.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Goyer flies with 'Superman'
Filmmaker tapped to pen the Warner Bros. pic
By MARC GRASER

My favorite parts?

According to sources close to the companies, Goyer pitched a more action-packed idea that involves Superman battling arch nemesis Lex Luthor and super villain Brainiac -- far different than the original story that was seen in "Superman Returns" in 2006. He could wind up helping another scribe develop the final script, as he did with "The Dark Knight."

"Superman Returns'" Brandon Routh and Bryan Singer are not expected to return, after the film disappointed the studio when it earned $390 million worldwide.

Yes indeedy. Time will tell, however, if this is anything other than a lateral move.

Of course, it's not all wine and roses.

"Man of Steel" ... would help Warner Bros. get a new Superman pic on the bigscreen before it loses the copyright on the character in 2013.

The Siegel heirs and the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire Superman copyright in 2013, according to an ongoing court battle over who owns the character.

Which, again, makes me wonder that WB isn't missing an opportunity here. If I were in WB's shoes, how would I proceeed? Glad you asked!

I'd sign a hot shot director, pair him up with Grant Morrison and an established screenwriter and announce the Superman trilogy that fans would give one of their paired reproductive organs to see. Nothing but the best. First rate casting, a virtually unlimited promo budget, the works.

Announce a trilogy... but only sign the people involved for two films.

Movie 01 sets it all up in grand fashion. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, all is well with the world.

Movie 02 ups the ante. Brainiac ends up kidnapping Perry, Jimmy, Lois, Superman and time warps them back to Krypton where he shoots Superman dead with a Krypto ray gun in front of Jor-El and Lara's horrified eyes. Roll credits.

After that, let 2013 come and go. Mass audiences are salivating to see how the story ends but the Siegel Parasites are in no position to finish off the trilogy since any resolution must necessarily involve characters to which they do not own the rights... and bringing the cast and crew back may well prove to be an exercise in futility since none but the actors portraying characters the Siegel Parasites do not have access to are under contract for more than two films. Neither can the Siegel Parasites reboot since audiences are zoned in on the WB "trilogy". Storywise, make it as impossible as possible for the Siegel Parasites to finish the story without getting a Mother May I from WB... and then deny them, announcing that you have no plans to license the characters at present. But best of luck in your future endeavors! Then give 'em half of the peace sign; this Bud's for you!

I'd piss the fans off something fierce in doing all that but it'd be worth it to stick it to the Siegel Parasites. One last time.

From hell's heart I stab at thee.

[The Joker]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015706.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Goyer flies with 'Superman'
Filmmaker tapped to pen the Warner Bros. pic
By MARC GRASER

Outstanding news!


As far as reboots are concerned, this is certainly one that I can wholeheartedly support as we should have received a Superman reboot in 2006 rather than a love letter from Bryan Singer to Richard Donner.


Now with the whole Siegel family fiasco, unfortunately there is definately a misconception on exactly what they are actually awarded in their lawsuit with WB.


What the Siegel family actually won is this:

(1) Action Comics No. 1 (subject to the limitations set forth in the Court?s previous Order).
(2) Action Comics No. 4.
(3) Superman No. 1, pages three through six.
(4) and the initial two weeks? worth of Superman daily newspaper strips.


Ownership in the remainder of the Superman material at issue that was published from 1938 remains solely with WB/DC.


Which means they have;

Superman/ Clark Kent/ Kal-L (not Kal-El)
Lois Lane
Editor ( I'm guessing George Taylor)
The Kents ( John and Mary, Mary is used for Ma Kent's name in Action #1)
Jor-L (not Jor-El)
Lora (Not Lara)
The Daily Star (not Daily Planet)
Krypton

Powers: Super strength, invulnerabilty, and yes, great leaps.


So basically, if the Siegel family want to be complete asshats and take Superman elsewhere. Fine. They would be doing nothing but screwing themselves and at the same time seriously de-valuing the Superman brand.


This is what the Siegel family did not win .... are you ready for this?

And here ... we ... GO!

Jimmy Olsen,
Perry White,
The Daily Planet,
Kryptonite,
Lana Lang,
Jonathan and Martha Kent,
Jor-El,
Lara,
Kal-El,
Supergirl,
Lex Luthor,
Toyman,
Prankster,
Bizarro,
Brainiac,
Mr. Mxyzptlk (well you get the point, Supes ENTIRE rogues gallery),
Metropolis,
Smallville,
The Fortress of Solitude,
Kandor,
Flight,
Heat vision,
X-Ray Vision, etc.


Hell, the Siegel family won't even be able to use the Superman symbol (yes, the one that evolved over the years to what it is now) that everyone and their grandparents are familiar with for merchandising as yes, that's trademarked by WB as well.  


So in short, is Superman going anywhere? Not very likely. WB is not going to let a valuable property like Superman slip thru their fingers, and the Siegel's, whether they want to admit it or not, need WB.

The Siegels won what is essentially a Luke Cage, not a Superman. As stated above, DC will still own a large slice (a considerable slice at that) of what readers and fans understand as Superman. And let's be honest here, the Siegel's honestly can't do much with a Superman hat has to take a car to a fight because he cant fly.  


Which ultimately makes the idea of a Siegel reboot highly bloody unlikely.

[The Dark Knight]

"Superman Returns'" Brandon Routh and Bryan Singer are not expected to return, after the film disappointed the studio when it earned $390 million worldwide.

That's all I really care about at present. Get those hacks away from the franchise and do things properly. It'll be just like starting over.

[Kamdan]

I must say that, for the first time, I have a sense of hope for a new Superman film. Goyer said EXACTLY what I wanted to hear, particularly the John Bryne reference. What we want to see is adaptation of Superman from the COMICS, not from the previous MOVIES. That was the exact mistake that Singer made. If we wanted to see that incarnation of the character, we would just watch the films again. Also, I hope that they will be casting SUPERMAN/CLARK KENT, instead what Singer did. He was trying to cast CHRISTOPHER REEVE. It is absolutely disgraceful to cast someone in a part like that simply because you want to copy a brilliant movie from those years ago, because you simply can?t come up with something on your own.

[The Dark Knight]

I must say that, for the first time, I have a sense of hope for a new Superman film. Goyer said EXACTLY what I wanted to hear, particularly the John Bryne reference. What we want to see is adaptation of Superman from the COMICS, not from the previous MOVIES. That was the exact mistake that Singer made. If we wanted to see that incarnation of the character, we would just watch the films again. Also, I hope that they will be casting SUPERMAN/CLARK KENT, instead what Singer did. He was trying to cast CHRISTOPHER REEVE. It is absolutely disgraceful to cast someone in a part like that simply because you want to copy a brilliant movie from those years ago, because you simply can?t come up with something on your own.

Well said, Darrell. I feel exactly the same way.

[thecolorsblend]

The older I get, the more I realize I have to come down firm on things.  But it's really hard to be objective on the Byrne Age Superman run (1986 to 2006).  That's my Superman.  Those were the issues I grew up on.  In particular, from 1987 until about 1996 or '97, that was just a solid run of comics.  Bar none, the best I've ever read, Superman or not.  Everything was intricately tied together with deep continuity, consistent characterizations, largely believable conflicts and plots, etc.  Other comics may be overall more entertaining but you're hard pressed to find something so well-crafted over so long a period with such consistency and depth.

So on the surface, adapting those comics seems like the right way to go... except, y'know, if I'm nervous about the Spidey reboot (and "nervous" is just about the nicest way to put it; "bordering on panicked" is another way), how much do you think I'm freaking out over a Byrne adaptation?  I mean, yeah, the potential's certainly there for it to blow my socks off, put 'em back on and blow 'em off again.  But... if this thing sucks...

Well.  Put it like this.  I'd been waiting for a new Superman movie for nineteen years.  19 years.  That's nineteen.  Years.  One-nine.  1.  9.

Nineteen.

More than three quarters of my life up to that point.

And a fu.cking bartender from LA running around in a pleather bikini mumbling old Christopher Reeve dialogue is all I have to show for it!!

So yeah.  There's a sense in which I sincerely don't care who makes and/or stars in this movie.  Allz I know is that when credits roll, if I don't say "I'm gonna go smack my mama that was so good"... well, I can't be held responsible for whatever happens after that.

[The Dark Knight]

I admit Batman fans have it pretty good. We?ve got the Burton and Nolan flicks - with another due soon. We?ve got the awesome B: TAS. We?ve got a number of solid graphic novels. The video game history isn?t much chop, but lately it?s been fine, Lego Batman, Arkham Asylum and the sequel on the way.

Luckily you?ve had Smallville to keep you going. Seriously. To me, each and every one of the Superman films are pitiful ? though you do have to admit the first is important. I respect it more than love it. Even if you love all of the films, you?ve probably seen them a million times and want something new.

The Animated Series was good, but not a patch on B: TAS by a damn sight. And all of the games suck - with nothing on the radar there either.

Superman as a brand needs a good film badly. The brand needs to earn back respect with a good one. The brand needs to be reinstated into mainstream consciousness, because it?s being left behind. Inaction is killing things. As Ras Al Ghul would say, you need the will to act.

[The Joker]

The Animated Series was good, but not a patch on B: TAS by a damn sight.

For my money, Superman: The Animated Series is THE best media that Superman has appeared in during the last 20 years outside of the comics medium.

Great casting (hell Gilbert Gottfried was actually tolerable as Mr. Mxyzptlk!) added with entertaining and highly re-watchable episodes, made this show exceptional for any fan of Supes.

Superman as a brand needs a good film badly. The brand needs to earn back respect with a good one. The brand needs to be reinstated into mainstream consciousness, because it?s being left behind.

Can't argue with that. I initially was on board Singer helming a Superman movie back when it was first announced he landed the gig (2004?), but as soon as news broke about what he wanted to do with it (like say for instance the "vague sequel" crap), I became a bit skeptical on if he was really the right director for the job. About two years later, in the summer of 2006, I went with some friends to see Superman Returns, and ugh ... it was the first time, in a long time, I actually found myself checking my watch during a movie I unfortunately PAID to see.

[Grissom]

What do you guys think of Jonathan Nolan signing on (if I'm correct) to dreict the next Superman film? To be honest I'm not sure about it, even though Chris Nolan is mentoring. Has he directed before, because you always need a solid director when it comes to properties like Superman, Batman etc.

What do you guys thinks?

[thecolorsblend]

What do you guys think of Jonathan Nolan signing on (if I'm correct) to dreict the next Superman film? To be honest I'm not sure about it, even though Chris Nolan is mentoring. Has he directed before, because you always need a solid director when it comes to properties like Superman, Batman etc.

What do you guys thinks?

I'll believe that when it's announced.  As far as I know, not even the trades have picked that up.

It's a little preposterous.  As far as I know, Jon Nolan has never directed anything.  I therefore doubt that WB will give him, say, $180 million, the keys to one of their major franchises and say "have fun!"

I don't give a flying rip who his brother is or what job Chris might do on the movie, I just don't see it happening.  WB has a lot on the line here and it doesn't make very much sense to give the job to someone who hasn't even directed so much as an indie flick.

I'm not saying WB wouldn't do it; I'm just saying it's a moronic idea and I won't believe it until it's in a trade or a WB announcement.