The Hot Blog

Oddly enough (possibly poor choice of words...) but I agree for your take for the first movie - I think the world (not just the US domestic market) wants to see Superman cut loose, and not in an "overcoming self doubt" or "jingoistic" kind of way.

They could do much worse than take notes from the Bruce Timm version.

I'd rather see LexG come up with story ideas for this than DP.

Question: How the hell do you know that what you outline here isn't something that Nolan and company are well aware of and considering? Does that not fit into the "Poland knows how to run Hollywood like no other mortal" mold well enough or something?

And by "outlined here," I mean the more abstract stuff that leads into your full-blown three-film quasi-pitch, by the way (which is really three acts of one film, not three films -- not three compelling films, anyway).

Give DP a few minutes - he's filing his screenplay with WGA as we speak.

Maybe an over-the-top character like Superman needs an over-the-top director like Roland Emmerich or a producer like Jerry Bruckheimer. The latter might bring in (shudder) Michael Bay, but that could work for Superman.

The other thing (and this is the important part) is that any nemesis for Superman really needs to be more of a match for Superman than Lex Luthor and his various real estate schemes. I think a Superman movie with the epic (and admittedly cheesy) sweep of a Independence Day or Transformers would do gangbusters.

I find it odd that Nolan cares about Superman. Did an off-hand comment -- you know, a sentence or two -- by Nolan over dinner really WOW Alan Horn that much? Seems so.

As for Batman 3, there's no point to making it unless The Joker will be back. It will be the biggest elephant in the room if he's not there. A superb Riddler or whatever cannot erase the lingering thought that every movie-goer will have while they're watching Bat 3: So where's The Joker? Is he really in Arkham? Really? Where's the chest game between him and Batman?

Wow, Kris... a little angry. (insert extremely vulgar joke at Kris's expense - I removed mine - here.)

You miss my point. I'm not saying that Nolan is dumb or I am smarter than him or anything like that.

I am saying that Hollywood has done shit like this forever and it almost never leads anywhere because filmmakers are filmmakers and, in general, not very good producers/godfathers.

And my primary take is that this is more publicity stunt for WB than the new driving force behind the franchise.

And my quickly thrown together three films that you think are three acts are only three acts if you have no imagination beyond the world's briefest pitch outline.

I only offered it to prime the pump for ideas from the peanut gallery.

I hope its not another origin story because we already know that, but I'd like to see Superman given some type of Batman treatment, not necessarily as dark a tone, but just updated for modern consumption.

The dorky Clark Kent should be out, and something that always bothered the heck out of me is why don't they recognize that Clark is Superman? The way they let you know where Batman gets all his gizmos from couldn't they solve that problem as well. noble prize winning reporters can't recognize a guy with his glasses off for christ sakes. Can't they make his glasses some sort of face altering mechanism so that when he takes it off it alters some of his features so while he's different, there's still some sort of resemblance there. Would be a nice plot point as well and add some comic relief. With today's CG, why not.

I agree that what Superman needs is a new vision, both from a director and screenwriter, and Chris Nolan is definitely not that person. His revival of Batman is a masterpiece, but we need someone new for Supes. However, I think WB putting him on as a mentor is a great idea. I think he can give whoever takes the reigns a general idea of how to adapt from comics to screen. Of course, whoever is chosen to helm the project needs to make it their own, but I don't think Nolan can hurt the franchise and I certainly wouldn't call it a desperate move.

Actually, James Robinson and Greg Rucka have been doing some fantastic work on Superman over in the comic books. I've never been much of a fan of the character, but they have made the character very compelling.

I agree that an origin story isn't the way to go. The reason that 'Batman Begins' and 'Star Trek' (or even 'Casino Royale') worked is because they told a story that hadn't been told before, yet one that could fit into the canon most are familiar with.

I don't think that exists for Superman (especially with eight seasons of 'Smallville'), unless the story is overhauled like Abrams tried to do with his script.

The bigger question: how is it that Jon Peters remains attached to this franchise? Why, if they're rebooting it, does he have any claim on it at all? All he did on the last one was rack up tens of millions in botched development fees -- when WB handed it off to Singer, Singer started from scratch and brought in his own writers. So what is Peters bringing to the table on the reboot? It's not like he brought WB the property or had an option on the underlying material, like most producers -- they own friggin' DC for Christ's sake. So what's the real story? Compromising photos of Alan Horn? This is the real angle that some brave journalist needs to investigate.

Let's not give up that day job.

Soysauce... the desperation is not Nolan or his ideas, it's making that the public face of the franchise. It's publicity. And that need to sell the idea that they have the franchise under control because they put Nolan on it - which is all they are claiming here - is desperate.

"I only offered it to prime the pump for ideas from the peanut gallery."

Oh, well if we're SUPPOSED to throw out ideas...

There's a much better property out there if you want the Superhero moral quandries that Nolan leans towards - Stormwatch.

For those of you who aren't as familiar (which is probably almost all of you), Stormwatch was one of those fairly generic superhero teams that was launched in the comic boom of the early 90s... until Warren Ellis took over the writing. Then shit got weird.

Movie 1 follows the Change or Die storyline. Stormwatch is a United Nations team of (mostly) superheroes lead by (human) strategist Henry Bendix, they are deployed around the world to counter supervillain or large scale military threats. A superpowered being called "The High" turns up, proclaiming that the world must "Change or Die". Soon after, there are a series of events that threaten to destabilize the global balance of power. Long story short, Stormwatch defeats (and kills) The High's team only to discover that they WOULD have turned the world into a utopia - and were prevented from doing so by Henry Bendix, who they promptly kill. The movie ends with Stormwatch splitting in two due to infighting - those who believe that they should follow The High's example and change the world for the better, and those who feel that they should prevent other people from imposing their will on others.

Between Movies 1 & 2 there is filler - Sleeper. This is actually already in development, with Tom Cruise attached to star (no, really). The gist is that it's about a secret agent who is accidentally fused with an alien device that absorbs and then discharges pain (making him more or less indestructible, as he will heal from any injury given time, but preventing him from having any sense of touch). The rest of his team is killed during the accident, and his superior takes this opportunity to create a cover story that he killed his team and has gone rogue, with the intention of sending him as a sleeper agent into a supervillain criminal organization. Unfortunately, after having created the cover story his superior is put in a coma during an attempted assassination attempt, leaving Sleeper with no-one to report to and no-one who knows that he's actually supposed to be a double agent. During one of his missions to prove his loyalty to the criminal organization, he plants an alien device for the US government to find...

Movie 2 follows Coup d'Etat. After an introduction where the newly formed Authority (consisting of the most powerful superheroes from Stormwatch) bitchslap around a few tinpot dictators, the US government tests the device planted by Sleeper and accidentally destroys an alien city - causing the aliens to declare war on Earth. The Authority repel the invasion, and then decide that the government isn't fit to control the various technologies and promptly perform a coup (the president is portrayed as arrogant, incompetent, and out of touch, giving plenty of opportunities for left-wingers to fantasize about kicking Bush out while right-wingers can fantasize about kicking Obama out). The movie ends with the Authority installed as the leaders of the US, wondering what they're going to do next.

Movie 2b is the flipside to Movie 2 - it follows Team Achilles, who are the least (or, in some cases, non) powered members of the old Stormwatch. In their own words, "We aren't superfucks, we kill superfucks". After an establishing period where they take down a team of superpowered villains and introduce the team dynamics, the Authority perform their coup of the US. Fearing that they will be seen as a threat, they retreat to a neutral ground. The Authority find the remains of one of the supervillains who was accidentally killed and mistakenly assume that Team Achilles are attempting to commit genocide against all superbeings. Showdown ensues with a stalemate. Both teams retreat to their respective hideouts (or, in the Authority's case, the White House) to decide what they're going to do next.

Movie 3 (or 4 depending on how you're counting) is a hybrid of the Revolution and Citizen Soldier storylines. Old superheroes, who were presumably retired and in their 80s, start showing up young and in their prime to create rallies against the Authority. At first the Authority assume Team Achilles is behind it, but the rallies soon turn violent and the old superheroes start attacking public places, including Wall Street and the Supreme Court. The Authority and Team Achilles must put aside their ideological differences to unite against the new threat - which turns out to be directed by Henry Bendix, who is not as dead as everyone thought. The heroes prevail and the Authority relinquishes control back to democratically elected officials, and a grudging truce is established. Viewers can then commence discussions about which ideology was "better" and which was "worse".

If anyone from WB is reading - these ideas are created under the WTFPL license. Hah! I'd like to see you get around THAT...

I hope the WB is ALL EARS because I am about to give them A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY. I can be contacted via my Twitter if they'd like to employ me in a writing (or other creative) capacity on this project:

Kristen Stewart IS Supergirl.

they should do a kick-ass wonder woman before another lame incarnation of supes

Bryan Singer already took notes from the Bruce Timm version, when he ripped off the plane rescue scene almost beat for beat from the pilot episode of Superman: The Animated Series.

I know Dave meant the Lethal Weapon 5 reboot as a joke, but if they must, switch the roles, my nominees are Will Smith & Ray Winstone, or a gender bender-Angelina Jolie & Sam Jackson.

One Word: SUPERMAN'S PAL: JIMMY OLSEN.

It's called All-Star Superman. It features Lex Luthor, crazy robots, and heroism so epic that it was made for the cinema. If Nolan wants to godfather something, he will godfather that graphic novel into production.

You should also not give up your day job.

What if the execs at WB were approached by Nolan to put Superman in Batman 3. Here's the pitch: Bruce Wayne by the 3rd act is out of control, the now near-crazy brutal enforcer of Gotham City that goes to any lengths to enforce order after another bout with the Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman. The new Superman gets called in to get this situation under control, halting Bruce's sad descent into madness, ending the movie and this version of the Bat. The new Superman movie, no origin story, begins sadly by expanding on Supes role as the only army the US government needs under command of President Luthor. Luthor has taken over the world using Superman to enforce peace on the world. Superman has agreed to this arrangement, this deal with the devil luthor, because he believes creating peace under is the best way to protect humanity from itself. He is the constant deterrent to Batman's enforced order. The trilogy is about Superman realizing that he has become what he stopped in Batman, and that while his power has no limits, he must limit himself for humanity to thrive. Of course, what has to happen is Superman must be let lose and pushed to his absolute limits, or in fact fails. Braniac would make a great villain, something that Superman's pure strength and speed are largely useless to fight. Lifting most of this from various comics, animated series, etc.

bulldog -- re: kent's glasses from 'superman' #330 12/78

"he finds that his glasses - which have lenses made of the Plexiglas from his Kryptonian rocket - are channeling low-level subconscious projections from Superman himself to make people believe that Clark and Superman appear differently. Whereas ordinary glass or Plexiglas would not have this effect, Clark's super-lenses do, because they are from Krypton - and "things" from Krypton take on super-special characteristics on Earth, as did Superman himself."

Superman is not as tough a nut to crack as you think.

ready?

can the angst.

angst is for batman.

superman should fly into space and fight aliens.

it's not that hard. people just seem to forget that all superheroes don't require emotional baggage. some superheroes can be action adventure movies without some kind of emotional bullshit that ties the movie down.

superheroes don't always have to be angst ridden.

re: iron man

It's the easiest goddamn character in the entire superhero spectrum to turn into a trilogy and the only reason it becomes a cluster is because people overthink it every time.

What Dave suggested is close to what Mark Millar supposedly pitched WB and they passed. The whole point in adapting a comic - give the audience the character they know with a larger FX plate. Singer busted because he, like Burton, projected too much of himself into the character.

Follow Paul Dini's construction for the animated series. He's written a bigger version of Superman with Alex Ross, but that was co-opted by Singer. You have to strip him down to the basics but build a larger universe around him that goes beyond Krypton.

WB fucked it all up by not simply taking elements of Smallville and shifting it to the screen. It would have been a breeze to do a split from the TV show using the alternate reality concept Abrams pulled for Trek, and something I advocated for years ago because it's native for Superman. Donner had him spin the axis backward to reverse time and save Lois, you do the same for the TV show except it shoots Welling into an alternate reality, which is the movie. It's a reboot with a built-in fanbase and wider awareness because you have two generations of high schoolers and college graduates who grew up with Welling in the role.

Murdoc - I think you're on to something. I totally forgot about the JLA project. WB scrapped George Miller's flick because they wanted to intro the characters then have a group film.

You're probably right.

Yes, this is desperate. No, it is not a bad idea. Nolan will produce a perfectly worthwhile trip to the cinema. The day he stops being doubted is the day we can move onto better discussion.

And yes, Life&DeathBrigade is right. All-Star Superman. It is written. Everyone else can go home. Just smack that onto the screen and you have yourself a breakout hit for the ages.

Sheesh.

Look, whatever the Superman movie story is, it needs to maintain that aw, shucks, American dream goodness. I say, let Aaron Sorkin have a shot at the script (Sports Night banter would be perfect for Lois Lane, and West Wing American idealism in an imperfect world). Then get Spielberg or one of his alcolytes (Zemekis would be awesome, too) to direct it.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work for so many reasons, but if you want something done right...

Yes, the (500) Days of Summer "romantic" sensibility is exactly what a "Superman" reboot needs. It's that same sort of twee bullshit that killed the Spider-Man franchise.

Leahnz,

I do not at disagree with you on the notion of a kick ass Wonder Woman...that this property has been lying dormant for so long is silly. What they need to do is reinvision her as the tough Valkyrie type that appeared in Kingdom Come and quit bandying about names like Sarah Michelle Gellar or Jessica Alba. I think Biel is perhaps the closest we have right now but I would pay big bucks to see that film. Wonder Woman is one of my favourites.

Dave,

Funny, the first thing I thought when I read the news of Nolan "mentoring" Superman is that Avatar's days are numbered as top grosser.

I am also a huge Supes fan. Picking Nolan is not desperate...it is smart. Smart in a big "Look how smart us smarty pants are" way.

I am even a marginal fan of Superman Returns and Singer's and Routh's work on it but highering Nolan is exactly what this franchise needs. A smart, clever director who knows who to get to the core of a character and distill it to its primal essence. Nolan has not made one film that is flaky. Everything he does is smart. After decades of marginal camp and beyond Superman, that is what we need.

What will be interesting is much they take the new Superman in the direction of outer space battles with aliens and such. You say that we do not need another reporter type story...that is why they hired him. Because he did not redo the Batman origin nor did he make Batman secondary even though Ledger shined bright.

Nolan the great being hired for this franchise is the best pop film news I have heard in a long time.

Comparing Nolan to McG (shit) and Singer (mediocre) is nuts. Even comparing to Burton since heir styles are so different. But Nolan has consistently made interesting movies that are entertaining while not being stupid as fuck, so why not? He's got good ideas...Memento, how to revise Batman, The Prestige, Inception (seemingly). Why WOULDN'T you want this guy to give some input? Wo out there is any better? Not to say that Nolan is the best there is, but who's a better choice? I'd say NOT the 500 Days of Summer assholes.

Seriously, didn't anyone read Singer's script and realize nothing happened and the whole plot was about REAL ESTATE? And of course it was Lex Luthor again which could be fine but since the guy's rich why couldn't he have built some giant robots or something to at least give Superman some minor trouble? The climax of Superman Returns is him lifting a BIG ROCK! Fuuuuuck the people in Hollywood are stupid.

Anyway, I like DP's general ideas for Superman. We've seen the straight forward version of Superman where everyone loves him, I'd like to see the implications of what would happen if an all-powerful alien showed up and started messing with our shit. Some would love him, some would hate him, some would fear him and some would build a religion around him. There's a lot of places to go with this character.

But this time please have a monster or some robots. Thank you for listening Hollywood.

If they want an epic origin/reboot story, they should just adapt Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright from 2004. It's all there in 314 fantastic pages.

"Stranger in a Strange Land" should be used as inspiration for the next Superman movie. Err, how about making Stranger into a movie?

I'm too old for this shit.

Doesn't it just feel like America and the world isn't in a Superman state of mind these days? The 70's and 80's just felt a bit more hopeful and less angry to me and now, the world is more bitter and less "oh shucks." Whatever happened to that Nic Cage as a really old/dying Superman? That would be cool.

Has everybody forgotten Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS Superman versus Batman. Two Americas at war. Epic.

Perm, that is hilarious. When you distill the movie downt to its plot points, it is rather ridiculous. I do think Singer had the right tone and feel for Superman. Perhaps this was just a "bridge" movie that tried to get something out there utilizing some of the dollars Peters wasted?

I always thought the sequel was supposed to be grandeous (in size and scope). Does anyone remember or heard of what Singer was planning for the sequel?

My problem with all this is that I'd rather have Christopher Nolan MAKE movies, instead of helping other people make them. What's the price of his time on Superman? Does a small but brilliant movie like Memento or The Prestige not get made? That's an unthinkable price to pay.

I love the first two Superman movies, but what else is there to do with it? The property is a sinkhole for talent. It's bad enough that Superman has already cost us a good X-Men 3 and probably also some random Tim Burton movie, but for it to tap into Nolan's time as well would be disastrous.

What about Kevin Smith's Superman script? Not that he would direct it, but wasn't that supposed to be good? (And I mean his original draft he gave WB, not the draft they made him redo with Supes fighting polar bears).

Sam, if anything I'd think Nolan helping out with Superman HELPS for him to get weird interesting projects made. I can't believe The Prestige would have been made for the budget it had if he hadn't made Batman, and they wanted to keep him happy.

I don't know what Smith's original script was like, but I read one version years ago. Can't remember it really well but frankly, seemed like the kind of movie a comics fan would write. And sometimes I think that's the worst mistake a movie can make. Because they're into all of the arcane lore that no respectible person gives a shit about. He had some talking robot sidekick to Superman, if I recall. It was awful, terrible writing and way too nerdy.

I'm certain that no one wants to see a Superman vs Batman movie.

And I'd disagree with Don too...Spider-Man came right after 9-11, and that was all Americana and happy. Superman doesn't HAVE to be a boy scout...he should be essentially good, but saying that Superman must be a certain type of character is what limits him. Make him a little conflicted, put some drama in it beyond a typical love story. When they made the Matrix and at the end of the first you're like "oh shit, he's god." When they announced sequels that sounded awesome, like how would this guy disrupt the world, what would happen? The sequels answer...ignore it! Fuck you too, Wachowskis.

Smith's script featured Brainiac and I thought it was supposed to be good. Of course, WB made him change a bunch of it and add goofy shit. Maybe his script needs work, but the basic story might be in place.

I agree, Supes vs Batman would probably be horrible.

However, I think the Wachowski's road is the way to go. You can't have Supes being all superious and just smashing things for the sequel, likewise the Wachowski's needed other ideas to investigate besides having Neo fly around from battle to battle. I'm not saying Supes needs to wrestle with the same ideas or that the religous/spritual stuff was great in Matrix, but it is that change of pace that would be needed in a part 2 and 3 of Supes. Which is what I think DP is getting at. Being Superman can be boring for the audience to watch.

I read the Kevin Smith Superman script about ten years ago. If I was reading the right script, the first act was dynamite, but once the whole 'Death and Return of Superman' arc kicks in, it basically becomes almost a 'Lethal Weapon' type story with Superman and the Eradicator as mismatched partners. Of course, the whole Death/Return of Superman is a pretty terrible and bloated arc to begin with (it was a way to buy time so that the TV Lois and Clark could get married before the comic versions did), but I never understood the love for Smith's take.

Nice post but I wouldnt term WB "desperate." Yes it really wants to expand its DC Comics universe by re-launching Superman. But it has the most viable current franchise in Batman, has two DC movies coming out in "Jonah Hex" and "Green Lantern," and is probably in the best position of all the majors when it comes to superhero adaptations.

Disney's gambit buying Marvel, and Sony's rebooting of Spider-Man (along with its determination to go ahead with Ghost Rider 2 and Hancock 2) reek more of desperation in the Superhero movie clusterf*ck going on right now.

Fox certainly isn't sitting any prettier having either destroyed potential franchises (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, League of Gentlemen) and angering the fanboy community with its "X Men First Class," and "Wolverine 2" in the pipeline.

Meanwhile poor Universal just has rights to the Hulk.

In the grand scheme of things, WB is currently taking advantage of the superhero phenomenon more than any studio than Paramount. "Green Lantern" seems more of a surefire hit than anything else in production aside from Iron Man and Batman even if Superman doesn't get off the ground.

Dave - in what world do you think Superman Returns was what comic fans wanted? They generally hated it.

And, bash on those fans all you like, the fact remains that the successful superhero flicks are the ones that HAVE kept the fans happy - because they honored the tone and spirit (if not plot details) of the comics - you know, the reason the characters have endured for decades.

My take was that DP was highlighting the distinction that what people WANT isn't necessary what they NEED. Comic fans wanted Superman to be more mature, and focus more on the inner conflict - and they didn't like where that actually led them.

Think of the Simpsons episode where Homer designs a car - he puts in all the elements that he thinks will be great... and you probably know the rest.

People keep saying what they think the comic fans wanted.... but don't seem to have spoken to any. They wanted BIG action from the blue boyscout.

though I agree with the general point, to a degree. Fans don't tend to have the perspective to write for characters they love, most of the time - my favorite example of this was Star Trek Nemesis. But there are exceptions, too, such as Del Toro with Hellboy and Raimi with Spider-Man.

I've got a soft spot for Hellboy. I was in Malaysia at the time, where it was released under the name "Super Sapiens" - I had no idea what it was until I went to the theatre and saw the standee. I loved the art direction with its beautiful use of golds, reds and greens, combined with great lighting and offbeat designs.

Super Sapiens...ha ha, wow.

It seems like generally comics fans and internet fan's suggestions for movies is "make it dark."

I'd disagree with jasonbruen about taking the Wachowski route to Superman...in that all the sequels DID look at was the religious "you are The One" horse hockey that we've seen in every fantasy/anime/comic book book in years. What would have been the interesting route to me would be, stay n The Matrix for a large portion of part 2 and see how Neo is shaking up the world. Could you imagine the implications if some guy was flying around in the real world? There are so many interesting places they could have gone. Instead, they focused on how he's God and we hung around the same old sci-fi sets from every other post-apocalypse movie.

I remember a Kevin Smith draft about 10 years ago that was literally the worst thing I'd ever read. Superman's power came from a special "organically intelligent" suit he wore (a black latex number, not the iconic tights and cape) and literally half of the movie consisted of Superman flying around having conversations with the suit, like "Knight Rider" or "My Mother The Car." To be fair, maybe this was the aforementioned WB rewrite forced upon him -- I don't know. Anyone else have any recollection of this?

"Dave - in what world do you think Superman Returns was what comic fans wanted?"

Where did I say this?

And I am not bashing on the fans. I am just saying that the audience is a lot bigger than the fans... has to be to generate grosses big enough to cover costs on these things. And it's not true that either all big hits were fan-loved or that all fan-loved films have done business.

In general, all movies, to be good, have to have their own vision. And then the fans come along or don't. You can't make movies "for the audience," because tastes change and change often. Zeitgeist matters. The reason that the movies that have worked, creatively and commercially, is not because the filmmaker listened to the fans... it's because he or she made a movie that was good and the fans followed.

I think you're overreacting to Nolan's involvement. Who's to say Nolan won't hire someone like Bigelow to develop this project? What Nolan is getting, I think, is the chance to manage resources on this film. He can set the table and let someone finish the job. Nolan does not shut any doors for this movie by being involved. This move makes sense.

"His vision was not one that any non-geek much wanted...."

Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions, but this seemed to carry the implication. But thanks for clarifying the point.

I agree the films shouldn't be made for the fans - but I do think the quality is tied to faithfulness to the source (be it comics or otherwise), in that to change to much is to alter what worked about the property in the first place.

So, is the deal now that Kathryn Bigelow should just direct EVERY SINGLE MOVIE that gets made at all for the next twenty-thirty years.

Man, every single new big-time project that gets floated, it's "GIVE IT BIGELOW! GIVE IT TO BIGELOW!"

Superman? BIGELOW. Bond? BIGELOW. Mission? BIGELOW. Pirates? BIGELOW. Spider-Man? BIGELOW.

Like, she's a fine director and I can ASSURE YOU that I was on the Bigelow tip 20-some years ago and even raved about BLUE STEEL; But even as a fan, it's FUCKING MYSTIFYING how with one movie after, let's face it, a 15-year cold streak, she's THE get director with her finger on the pulse of America that you guys want to have helming EVERYTHING.

Let's also not forget that HURT LOCKER made about $71.89 at the domestic box-office.

But it's good to know that if Peter Hyams randomly hit some small-scale drama OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK in 2011, he'd insta-qualify for a $250 mil budget no questions asked and the keys to Batman.

That's $71.89 AFTER TAX you philistine!

Not as mysterious as how Joe Johnston got the apparently shiteous "Wolfman" after Jurassic Park 3, Jumanji and Hidalgo. And how he now has the destined to be ruined "Captain America."

I don't know how he found a sex-tape of Ron Meyer and Kevin Feige together but props for that.

The difference between Bigalow and Hyams is that Bigalow has made exciting and fun movies, where Hyams never met a movie he couldn't turn into a deadly bore.

Perm, that's what happened in the Matrix sequels. It was not as much about god or the one, as much as it's about choice. Those two films are about choice. Your response is reason alone why those two films are the most misunderstood films of the entire oughts.

Misunderstood? Pfft...

The Matrix sequels are a stoner conversation with all the "like"s, "dude"s, and "man"s edited out.

Being stoned didn't even help me enjoy the Matrix sequels.

The biggest fans of the Matrix sequels edit them in their heads so that they only consist of the Cornel West audio commentaries and conveniently forget about the tedious action sequences involving characters nobody gives a shit about.

Wait, there were action sequences? All the babbling about inevitability made me fascinated with my bellybutton lint so I didn't pay attention.

i can't remember much about the matrix sequels. except that as the movies wore on, keanu and carrie-anne moss weirdly began to look more and more alike. and also that the number of black people in the cast appeared to multiply

I was watching HUMAN TARGET last night (speaking of like, DC comics) and I think that Mark Valley dude who stars in it would be a perfect Captain America. And I also think that Captain America will blow. Hard.

No more origin stories and no more boys, please. Hire the Mad Men guy or someone else over the age of 30 who can bring some life experience to this part.

No worries Joe. The life expectancy for a white male who is already 55 is an additional 25 years...so 80 not 75!=)

Apparently, my girlfriend and I are the only people on the planet who thought HIDALGO was four-star awesome. As a result, I've really been looking forward to THE WOLFMAN, but I can't help but be worried about all the delays, stories of re-editing, bad buzz, etc. And Benecio's apparent somnambulism in the trailer doesn't inspire much either, even though this was supposedly a passion project for him.

My wife and I also loved Hidalgo. I don't understand why it was received so poorly. I suspect that if the same exact movie had been made sometime between 1930 and 1970, it would be regarded as a minor classic. It has that old-fashioned adventure movie vibe that is perhaps just too innocent, escapist, and hopeful for today's sensibilities.

I liked Hildago quite a bit, if only because it was a quality example of 'the kind of movies they don't make anymore' (ie - real-world adventure pictures).

Is there any way to know just how involved Nolan will be? Wouldn’t he already have some type of ‘godfather” power over any superhero film coming in under the WB banner just to make sure no smaller element infringes on the 800 lbs gorilla? Like Kobe isn’t the GM nor coach nor part owner of the lakers but I can sure as heck guarantee Mitch Kupchak came to him and floated the idea “we’re thinking of going after Artest” well before they told Ariza he could walk and the deal was done. I would be inclined to believe Nolan would have some kind of veto power if he thought something another production was doing would draw any kind of comparisons to something he was thinking of doing. For Superman it could be commenting on characters, themes and action sequences. “And while I’m reviewing the guest list, let me just say how I would arrange the band, tables and menu.”

It doesn’t mean he’ll have final say or make things really his own, just saying what shouldn’t be done. At least not without expecting him to set up a shingle at Fox or Sony or the like. I can’t remember if there was any mention of him being an actual producer on it. Wouldn’t there be a certain point where he’d be compensated (points) like one? I’m sure he’d be paid now but again it’s how much? For WB it’s a way to advertise the way restaurants will put pics of stars on the wall. “Look, it has to be good. Tony Bennett eats here!!”

I get Dave's speculation that this is a pr stunt because it does have that feel, but just working with the open knowledge of how WB/DC have begun approaching the JLA movie and individual characters makes the Nolan move credible.

First, you have to remember Begins was only made because the AK Walker/Wolfgang Peterson Batman/Superman crossover was scuttled in favor of individual relaunches. During that period, Goyer tried to launch the Flash and was stopped, Silver has toiled with Wonder Woman, and only Green Lantern moved ahead. Also, DC was restructured within WB and Michael Uslan has taken the shepherd role over the properties.

IMO, Goyer had an idea for Batman3 that crosses common ground from Knightfall/No Man's Land and Dark Knight Returns, ground work found in the first two, and would allow for an intro of Superman and a segue to the JLA franchise. Otherwise, WB/DC is ceding a ton of 3D superhero real estate to Marvel/Disney with the Avengers, X-men and Spider-Man all moving forward. How late to the dance can they be?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)