Nolan to mentor Superman reboot

[thecolorsblend]

Look, I think some of you guys are being a bit harsh. At least wait till we find out something about the movie.

We know that WB is making it.  We know that Nolan is (at a minimum) producing it.  We know that David Goyer is writing it.

We do know some things.  And two of those things don't strike me as necessarily good.

I think WB realizes that they missed an opportunity with Superman. Back in 2004, they should've announced that they were reintroducing Batman in 2005 and Superman in 2006, both with updated origin stories.

Was it a mistake?  I dunno.  Every time they tried to reboot (in their eyes), the fans went crackers and threatened murder.  So here comes the X-Men guy pitching them on something that uses that Donner movie everyone loves as a platform to restart the franchise.

From their point of view, I think it made a lot of sense to use Singer.  I'm not saying it was the right move to make, just that it's understandable.

I'd also kind of understand if WB feels like they got burned by "the fans".

Just to be clear though, they should've rebooted back in 2004.

[johnnygobbs]

Of course, Superman is inherently American and I don't have any problem with him being draped in the US flag (although I imagine I'm in the minority as far as international audiences go).  As it happens Richard Donner's Superman films, which I personally rate, had many publicity shots featuring Superman cast against the Stars and Stripes.

My objections to Colors' post specifically related to his suggestion of Michael Bay, the culprit behind Transformers 2, Armegeddon, Bad Boys 2 and Pearl Harbo(u)r (the latter of which I quite liked more than most).  Whatever one might think of Nolan, he would be an infinitely preferable choice to the likes of Bay, McG, Simon West and any other number of asinine, commercial hacks.

[thecolorsblend]

Criticizing Michael Bay for making fun action movies is like criticizing Twinkies for not being nourishing.

Michael Bay directs action movies; Superman is an action hero.  Michael Bay tends toward patriotic imagery; such was interwoven into the Superman mythos from Day One.

Is he ideal?  Maybe not, but that certainly isn't because of his approach to filmmaking up to this point.

Is Chris Nolan ideal (as a director)?  Probably not, certainly because of his approach to filmmaking up to this point.

[johnnygobbs]

Criticizing Michael Bay for making fun action movies is like criticizing Twinkies for not being nourishing.

Michael Bay directs action movies; Superman is an action hero.  Michael Bay tends toward patriotic imagery; such was interwoven into the Superman mythos from Day One.

Is he ideal?  Maybe not, but that certainly isn't because of his approach to filmmaking up to this point.  Is Chris Nolan ideal (as a director)?  Probably not, certainly because of his approach to filmmaking up to this point.

James Cameron makes great action films.  Ridley Scott makes great action films.  John McTeirnan made great action films (before he went to jail for perjury).  Michael Bay makes 120 minute coca cola commercials for people with ADD.

I do however agree that Nolan would not be the ideal director for a Superman film, but it does seem as if he is merely acting in a producer capacity, in the same way Burton acted in a producer capacity for Batman Forever, and whilst no one can accuse that film of bearing any of Burton's directorial hallmarks, I can't help thinking that Burton's name prevented Schumacher from drifting into the ghastly excesses of Batman & Robin, which of course had nothing to do with Burton.

[phantom stranger]

Could someone please explain exactly why Nolan is the wrong guy for Superman? Because he took a "realistic" approach to Batman?

If so, that's a pretty weak reason, especially since he made a fantasy film called "The Prestige" which is pretty good.

[Grissom]

I watched The Prestige this past weekend and it is a pretty good film, I guess people might be looking at the action oriented scenes for Superman. Nolan is a great director and he directs action well (example TDK), but i'm not sure he has that skill to really create epic, intense action sequences, he could but would it measure up to other great epic scale, action sequences. Only time will tell I guess, if he does it.

[thecolorsblend]

James Cameron makes great action films.  Ridley Scott makes great action films.  John McTeirnan made great action films (before he went to jail for perjury).  Michael Bay makes 120 minute coca cola commercials for people with ADD.

Maybe my opinion is colored by how Bryan Singer squandered in excess of $200 million on a lackluster piece of crap while Bay put every nickle of his $150 mill budget on the screen in the first Transformers movie.  Don't really know.

All I know is you've said nothing to change my mind.

I do however agree that Nolan would not be the ideal director for a Superman film, but it does seem as if he is merely acting in a producer capacity, in the same way Burton acted in a producer capacity for Batman Forever,

You mean "in name only"?  It sounds to me like Nolan will have significantly more involvement than that.

Could someone please explain exactly why Nolan is the wrong guy for Superman? Because he took a "realistic" approach to Batman?

Short of using pictures, I'm not really sure how much simpler I can make this.  Nolan has, up to now, specialized in making films about driven, revenge-obsessed loners out for blood/a reckoning/revenge/whatever.  This is typically set in a world based upon a gritty type of realism.

We can argue amongst ourselves how well that serves Batman but at the end of the day, you're not exactly destroying the character if you present him in that fashion.  Nolan's approach works to some extent or another for Batman.

It would be a crashing failure for Superman... THAT is why I at least am concerned about what he might do to Superman.  Is that how Nolan will filter his approach to the material?  Possibly not.  But it's hardly out of the question.

If you still don't understand after this... well, you're on your own.

If so, that's a pretty weak reason, especially since he made a fantasy film called "The Prestige" which is pretty good.

The one thing that really takes the Prestige out of the real world was the duplication machine.  But even that was based on fuzzy movie science, wasn't a huge part of the narrative (in terms of running time) and, in any case, involved real world people from history.  Aside from that, the Prestige, good though it may be, was another Nolan story where some guy's out for revenge.

Not that you made this point but there's a lot more reason to wish Michael Bay was directing this movie than there is that Nolan is producing/mentoring/godfathering/bastardazing it.

[johnnygobbs]

Maybe my opinion is colored by how Bryan Singer squandered in excess of $200 million on a lackluster piece of crap while Bay put every nickle of his $150

Bryan Singer screwed up with Superman Returns, granted.  He is emphatically not an action director, and neither of is two X-Men films do anything to convince me otherwise.  However, SR had ten times as much heart, intelligence and aesthetic quality than Bay's Transformers films, and I'll think you'll find that most respected critics would agree with me (not that it should matter).

[thecolorsblend]

Those same critics also loved Singerman.  Movie critics in general are a bunch of pompous, self-absorbed, elitist jackasses.  Each is more full of sh.it than the last.  Precisely why should I give two fu.cks at midnight what they think?

Michael Bay understood what he needed to do with Transformers.  He took an 80's action show and, rather than make a tear-jerking chick flick (Singer's stated ambition for Singerman), he made modern action movie.

Oh yeah, and Transformers?  It made money.  Singerman?  Not so much.

Source material, lady and gents.  Reverence for it is a fine thing.

[THE BAT-MAN]

Christopher Nolan Talks 'Superman' and 'Batman 3'
by Elisabeth Rappe Mar 10th 2010 // 9:47AM

Filed under: Action, Warner Brothers, Scripts, DIY/Filmmaking, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels

Time probably stopped for Superman and DC fans when news broke that Christopher Nolan was going to oversee Warner Bros' Superman reboot, and that David S. Goyer would be penning a new Man of Steel story. (Possibly even titled Man of Steel.) As Nolan is one of those quiet chaps, there's been little word on what he and Goyer plan to do, but he's broken his silence and given an interview with Hero Complex.

Nolan remains tight-lipped on Goyer's idea, but revealed that it came about as they hit an impasse on Batman 3. "He basically told me, 'I have this thought about how you would approach Superman.' I immediately got it, loved it and thought: That is a way of approaching the story I've never seen before that makes it incredibly exciting. I wanted to get Emma [Thomas] and I involved in shepherding the project right away and getting it to the studio and getting it going in an exciting way." He wasn't willing to discuss villains (though he said Mr. Freeze won't be in it) or what time period it'll be set in, though he denied all the Man of Steel rumors currently circulating. There's a Superman reboot, and Goyer is writing the script. That's all he'll say, the tease.

Ok, not quite. Nolan quickly quashed any idea that a new Superman movie will lead to a Justice League spinoff. Superman will exist in his own world of Metropolis, and have no conception of a world where other superheroes exists. "A lot of people have approached Superman in a lot of different ways. I only know the way that has worked for us that's what I know how to do .... Each [hero] serves to the internal logic of the story. They have nothing to do with each other."

As for Batman 3, it is picking up steam. Jonathan Nolan is hard at work on the script, and while Nolan won't say whether or not he'll direct, he still seems to have a lot of enthusiasm for Gotham City and is eager to bring his Batman saga to a close. That's something the rumor mill didn't reveal at all, and should calm the fanboy fears that he will abandon his creation. "I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," Nolan said. "My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff. Unlike the comics, these thing don't go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That's what we do."

Now let the rumor mill and fantasy casting begin. The silence was just the gathering of the geek storm, believe me.