Christopher Nolan Spearheading SUPERMAN Revival
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:10 am
...and thankfully neither Bryan Singer nor Brandon Routh will have anything to do with it.
On the other hand, a dour, dark, downbeat SUPERMAN movie with brooding Hans Zimmer music will have nothing to do with what Superman is all about and would be just as ill-advised as what Singer did.
Like anything tone is hugely important to making this work -- I'm not necessarily sure Nolan, whose movies are downbeat and largely humorless, is the right match here for the material. But apparently we're going to find out.
Keep in mind that WB is DEFINITELY going to do this Superman film for a number of reasons. The whole court case last year basically is forcing them to go ahead and do this -- Nikki Finke explains....
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/its-a ... rd-batman/
Attorney Marc Toberoff, who keeps suing Warner Bros on behalf of creative rightsholders, warns that, in 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire original copyright to Superman -- "and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters". He's also pointed out that, if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Superman sequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators' heirs or estates.
At first, Warner Bros felt no pressure to rush out another Superman pic. As Warner Bros chairman Alan Horn told a court hearing about rights to Superman, he hoped to make another Superman movie but no film was in development, no script had been written, and the earliest he foresaw another Superman film released would be 2012. He told the judge: "We had hopes to keep the character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us."
On the other hand, a dour, dark, downbeat SUPERMAN movie with brooding Hans Zimmer music will have nothing to do with what Superman is all about and would be just as ill-advised as what Singer did.
Like anything tone is hugely important to making this work -- I'm not necessarily sure Nolan, whose movies are downbeat and largely humorless, is the right match here for the material. But apparently we're going to find out.
Keep in mind that WB is DEFINITELY going to do this Superman film for a number of reasons. The whole court case last year basically is forcing them to go ahead and do this -- Nikki Finke explains....
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/its-a ... rd-batman/
Attorney Marc Toberoff, who keeps suing Warner Bros on behalf of creative rightsholders, warns that, in 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire original copyright to Superman -- "and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters". He's also pointed out that, if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Superman sequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators' heirs or estates.
At first, Warner Bros felt no pressure to rush out another Superman pic. As Warner Bros chairman Alan Horn told a court hearing about rights to Superman, he hoped to make another Superman movie but no film was in development, no script had been written, and the earliest he foresaw another Superman film released would be 2012. He told the judge: "We had hopes to keep the character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us."
If any televison series would benefit from a leap to the big screen, it would be Smallville. You'd have something with a built-in fanbase and a movie that would work as a stand-alone for those new to the show's universe (especially as we'll likely never see Welling wearing the tradional Superman suit until the very last episode of the series, if even then). Just have a series finale with a surprise re-appearance of Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor and Welling pulling his shirt open to reveal the big red "S" for the first (cue John Williams fanfare). I agree it'll probably never happen, but how cool would that be? Sadly, the cast won't be "young" enough for studio suits to hang a franchise on, and they'll give us another teenage mother Lois. 
