Rumor: Chris Nolan to mentor Superman reboot

[The Minx]

Link


[quote]EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros is trying to ready its DC Comics stalwart Superman to soar again on the Big Screen, and the studio has turned to Chris Nolan to mentor development of the movie. Our insiders say that the brains behind rebooted Batman has been asked to play a "godfather" role and ensure The Man Of Steel gets off the ground after a 3 1/2-year hiatus. Nolan's leadership of the project can set it in the right direction with the critics and the fans, not to mention at the box office. Besides, Nolan is considered something of a god at Warner Bros and has a strong relationship with the studio after the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Though he wasn’t obligated to do so, he gave the studio first crack at his spec script Inception, and Warner Bros was able to buy it before other studios even got a sniff. While Nolan completes that Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer for a July 16th release, he's also hatched an idea for Warner Bros' third Batman installment. Now his brother and frequent collaborator Jonathan "Jonah" Nolan, and David Goyer who co-wrote Batman Begins and penned the story for The Dark Knight, are off scripting it. (See 'FlashForward' Showrunner Exits For Features).

Let us emphasize that Superman 3.0 is in the early stages of development. And we doubt Nolan would direct. This wouldn't be a sequel to Superman Returns but a completely fresh franchise. As one of our insiders reassures: “It would definitely not be a followup to Superman Returns." Nolan coming on board follows a hiatus period for Superman after that 2006 reboot as the studio tried to figure out whether or not to make a sequel to that version starring Brandon Routh directed by Bryan Singer. As recently as this summer, Warner Bros was still contemplating how to proceed. That's when we were told that "Bryan or Brandon are not completely out of it yet. But Warner Bros doesn't have a handle yet on it, either. [Producer] Jon Peters is trying to make something happen since he stands to benefit financially. But they [the studio] need to hear a great story that makes sense." Another insider explained to us, "We know what we don't want to do. But we don't know what we want to do. We learned a lot from the last movie, and we want to get it right this time."

Fans have long been yearning for Superman to finally get the big screen Nolan-ized treatment this classic superhero deserves. Warner Bros clearly has learned from all five Superman movies. Superman: The Movie and Superman II starring Christopher Reeve and produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind, were critical, fan, and financial successes. Their 1983 Superman III was mediocre. Then came a real dud in 1987, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace which continued wth Reeves but unfortunately was made by Golan-Globus's Cannon Films in association with Warner Bros. The inbetween period between that pic and 2006's Superman Returns was plagued by long delays and budget troubles and script misses. In 1997, original Batman director Tim Burton tried to make a Superman movie starring Nicolas Cage. Around 2004, J.J. Abrams wrote a film that was the first leg of a trilogy. Abrams wanted to direct, but had only directed episodes of his TV series (and wouldn't make his feature directing debut until 2006's Mission:Impossible III. McG and Brett Ratner separately were attached to that film. Ratner got closest, but Warner Bros was wary of a budget that swelled to $250 million, and which seemed risky after established star Josh Hartnett turned down the 3-picture deal that could have brought him $100 million in salary. After that, Warner Bros bosses didn't embrace Ratner's s choice of soap opera actor Matt Bomer to star.

Other prominent filmmakers were reportedly in the loop, but Warner Bros never pulled the trigger on the picture until Bryan Singer's involvement. Singer's Superman Returns was respectably reviewed for the genre. But it turned in only $52 million opening weekend, and $391 million worldwide gross. Problem was it cost too much (the budget was reportedly $270 million), and the promotion was lousy (Joel Silver was brought in at the last minute to inject macho into the marketing campaign). Worse, it left diehard fans only "meh" about a sequel starring Routh. Singer fared better, but it seems doubtful he'll be asked for an encore now. After all, Singer is now developing the spinoff X-Men: First Class for 20th Century Fox whose bosses were furious when he took on The Man Of Steel reboot instead of helming X-Men 3. But Singer and the studio subsequently made peace and he's back in the Fox fold and on board.

The restructuring of Warner Bros' business with DC Comics became Warner Bros Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov's first priority since having his contract reupped by Time Warner last summer. Problems have plagued the DC Comics-Warner Bros relationship for more than a decade. But the biggest failure has been to leave the most valuable DC Comics characters in movie development limbo by chaotically starting and stopping development on the high profile live action pics. Most recently, Warner Bros and DC Comics are finally getting their act together as evidenced by the progress on Green Lantern.

Superman 3.0 would test Warner Bros veteran executive Diane Nelson, the head of DC Entertainment Inc, that new company founded to fully realize and integrate the power and value of the DC Comics brand and characters across all media and platforms into Warner Bros Entertainment's content and distribution businesses. Nelson especially was charged with suping up Superman again because it's way too valuable to leave dormant like this. Besides, the clock is ticking.

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."

So Warner Bros is now bringing in Batman's saviour. What Nolan would do with the Superman character and story is intriguing to say the least. And he has the experience necessary of prepping and pepping a played-out franchise. The 2005 Batman Begins grossed $373 million worldwide on a reported $150 million budget. And of course 2008’s The Dark Knight crossed the $1 billion worldwide gross mark on a reported $185 million budget (and Heath Ledger posthumously won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor).

Batman was rebooted according to Frank Miller's film noirish take on Batman. But there's a big difference between Superman's cinematic incarnations and comic book version. Warner Brothers and DC Comics for a long time weren’t sure which version they liked better. The cinematic version has been squeaky clean, occasionally campy, and has more-or-less unlimited power except when confronted with Kryptonite. The comic book version has some limits on his powers, can be darker, and fights aliens a lot more. Shortly after Dark Knight hit it big, fans assumed that Superman would be taken to the “darkâ€

[General Havoc]

Chris Nolan has a TALL order ahead of him.

[frigidmagi]

Well one thing is for sure, he can't use the same tone he used in Batman. Superman is a completely different character and frankly I don't think he would work in the close up, personal, dark and gritty (but not grim!) style of the Nolan Batman movies. Don't get me wrong, I loved those movies but they work for Batman and they're not a universal cure all.

Also this reboot is gonna be plagued with the problem all 1st Superhero movies have. The need to retell the origin (I honestly think Hellboy did it damn well getting it done in like 15 minutes and moving on to the plot). There are times when I wish they could say "Look, it's fucking Superman, you know his damn origin, let's get on with it."

For Superman? I think you gotta go Epic. This is a larger then life character, that means you gotta play it big. As much as I love Lex Luthor, it may be time to put him on a seat for a movie or two. I mean to use Nolan as an example. He didn't open with the Joker, he used a character most folks didn't know. Let's have Lex working in the background for a movie or two. Instead let's have a villain or villains that Supes can brawl.

[Stofsk]

Retelling his origin has to be happen Frigid. The origin story is a powerful device for these kinds of mythic, archetypal characters. The first movie is considered the best, but even so, its really the first half that I like the most.

Batman Begins is almost entirely an origin story too, for that matter.

[frigidmagi]

Actually in my experience most people seem to feel the origin story makes a movie weaker, because they already know it and don't want to sit through it... Again. And starting in media res let's you get right to it.

[Cynical Cat]

Opening credits montage origin a la Watchman. Problem fucking solved.

[Cpl Kendall]

Is Marlon Brando dead? Maybe I'm showing my age but I would likely have a hard time getting past an origin without him in it.

[Stofsk]

He's dead.

[Batman]

I don't really see the origin story as all that important really, especially for a character EVERYBODY knows. Heck Burton's 'Batman' pretty much skipped it entirely and still worked splendidly. 'Superman Returns' didn' bother to. Yes, it was a semisequel to Superman II-a movie in theatres almost 2 decades before.
It was important for Begins because it WAS Begins. It WAS the origin story. For most superhero movies it's just a way to get the origins of the character over with. I think we can safely assume the general viewing public is aware of it WRT the Kryptonian Icon.

[Stofsk]

I will bet real money that you're all wrong and if they go ahead with it, it'll be an origins story.

[General Havoc]

I don't know, I think a properly done origin story (ALA Batman Begins) can be crucial in doing a good reboot. It does more than tell the audience where the character originated. It shows them what perspective this interpretation of the character is coming from. It's not so much about saying where Batman came from, but where this interpretation of Batman came from that's the important part. The Begins/Dark Knight series has a more realistic, introspective feel to it than the Batman/Returns series' more stylized and atmospheric feel. It's extremely important to use an origin story to set tone in that way. The Dark Knight, for instance, which did start in Medias Res would not have been the masterpiece it was without the worldbuilding and tone and setting work done in Batman Begins.

Granted, the original Batman did not require an origin story, and was still a masterpiece. But the original was just that, the original. It had no other canon to compare itself to (the Adam West shows notwithstanding). It was effective because it had no baggage to attach itself to. The Superman movies on the other hand are iconic, and well known. And therefore, if you wish to build anew on the legend of Superman, it would behoove one to show the audience how you will approach the story. One of the better ways to do that, I believe, is through an origin story.

[frigidmagi]

I will bet real money that you're all wrong and if they go ahead with it, it'll be an origins story.

Expect none of us said they would do the movie without the origin story so you're addressing the wrong point. What I said was often having to tell the origin story drags a superhero movie down.

So while I'll happily admit you're right and the origin will be included, I never said it wouldn't. So you're not actually addressing my point.

[Stofsk]

I will bet real money that you're all wrong and if they go ahead with it, it'll be an origins story.

Expect none of us said they would do the movie without the origin story so you're addressing the wrong point. What I said was often having to tell the origin story drags a superhero movie down.

Batman Begins would disagree with you. This looks like a point we can't agree on.

[Batman]

'Often' and 'HAVING to tell'. Begins worked splendidly because it was nothing BUT origin story ('Batman BEGINS'), it was about nothing EXCEPT how and why Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Me and I suspect frigid too are talking about origin stories that are shoehorned in just so the origin story HAS been told and they can get on with the actual movie. To me, Clark's origin story in Superman The Movie, while actually well done, was a complete waste of time that could've been spent showing Superman kick bad guy ass and give the finger to natural disasters instead (sadly, despite being settled with this, Superman STILL had more Superman action than Returns). I already KNOW all that stuff.

[frigidmagi]

Batman Begins would disagree with you. This looks like a point we can't agree on.

Expect Batman Begins has nothing to do with my point. You seem to be thinking I'm declaring there can never be an origin movie or that every movie will do the origin badly.

What I'm saying is this: A superhero movie usually is not an origin story but must tell the origin story anyways. This extra plot eats up time and is usually already known to the audience and thus becomes the most boring part. Batman Begins doesn't fall into this because it's all origin story and told very differently. But not every movie does that good of a job of telling the origin story now does it? Nor is every first superhero movie deciated completely to telling the origin.

[Stofsk]

Batman Begins would disagree with you. This looks like a point we can't agree on.

Expect Batman Begins has nothing to do with my point. You seem to be thinking I'm declaring there can never be an origin movie or that every movie will do the origin badly.

You said in the quote I replied to that "often having to tell the origin story drags a superhero movie down." So I pointed out Batman Begins. If Batman Begins has nothing to do with your point, fine. It has everything to do with my point, that an origin story can be told in such a way that it doesn't drag a film down.

What I'm saying is this: A superhero movie usually is not an origin story but must tell the origin story anyways. This extra plot eats up time and is usually already known to the audience and thus becomes the most boring part. Batman Begins doesn't fall into this because it's all origin story and told very differently. But not every movie does that good of a job of telling the origin story now does it? Nor is every first superhero movie deciated completely to telling the origin.

And that's why I said this isn't a point we can agree on. I find the vast majority of superhero movies utter shit. The one thing I do like is usually the origin story. If that aspect of the plot drags for you, fine - like I said, we can't agree on things we both like or don't like.

One thing we can both agree on however is that a Superman film needs to be epic.

[The Minx]

Whether its an origins story is less important IMHO than the overall tone they're going to use for the movie. Any Superman story can't take itself too seriously or it falls apart. That's one of the major things that went wrong the last time.

[Cynical Cat]

Whether its an origins story is less important IMHO than the overall tone they're going to use for the movie. Any Superman story can't take itself too seriously or it falls apart. That's one of the major things that went wrong the last time.

I must disagree. Superman 2 took itself pretty seriously, with a few exceptions, and it succeeded. What Superman can't be is dull. He's got to hit something very hard, be in mortal danger, and win without a deus ex machina.

[The Minx]

Whether its an origins story is less important IMHO than the overall tone they're going to use for the movie. Any Superman story can't take itself too seriously or it falls apart. That's one of the major things that went wrong the last time.

I must disagree. Superman 2 took itself pretty seriously, with a few exceptions, and it succeeded. What Superman can't be is dull. He's got to hit something very hard, be in mortal danger, and win without a deus ex machina.

Superman 2, with General Zod & co? It didn't strike me as taking itself that seriously, really. Pretty campy and fun all the way through. Even while there were "serious" moments in there the makers never got into the trap the Superman Returns crew fell into. Of course I didn't mean that they should be silly about it or not have any real tension in the story.

[Cynical Cat]

Superman 2, with General Zod & co? It didn't strike me as taking itself that seriously, really. Pretty campy and fun all the way through. Even while there were "serious" moments in there the makers never got into the trap the Superman Returns crew fell into. Of course I didn't mean that they should be silly about it or not have any real tension in the story.

Well that's because they took it away from Donner and had a new director shoot the campy scenes to lighten it up. The parts of it that were worth seeing were serious.

[The Minx]

Well that's because they took it away from Donner and had a new director shoot the campy scenes to lighten it up. The parts of it that were worth seeing were serious.

I didn't know that they had a second director. :/ Actually, come to think about it, it does make sense.

Anyway, would Superman 2 have been better with only serious scenes in it? I just feel that some balance needed for the overall tone, and if they are too serious, it won't be as good.

I guess I'm biased because I really didn't like Superman Returns and it took itself seriously. But maybe it was just the pseudo-demigod tone they gave Superman there.

[LadyTevar]

Minx, Superman *IS* a Demi-god. He is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!

Which is the problem... unlike Batman, who is 'merely' a man very dedicated to making himself the best, Superman is a Grecian god-hero. Batman is darkness and angst, Superman is Truth, Justice and the (50s) American Way, the best of what makes a hero a hero.

It's hard to balance that Grecian hero-mythos with the modern world, especially in a movie, without Supes' Mom-&-Apple-Pie values seeming campy.

[The Minx]

Minx, Superman *IS* a Demi-god. He is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!

Oh, yes! But he's a humble sort of demigod. ;)

It's not easy to balance the superhuman thing with the mom&apple pie values without making it campy, but that's better than sacrificing part of what makes Superman Superman.

IMHO, he's supposed to be all about deliberately avoiding making himself a god even though he could very easily act like one. It's part of his ethos and what makes him approachable and likable.

[frigidmagi]

I gotta say that I didn't like the tone of Superman Returns either Tev. I think Superman functions best when it's SuperMAN, not SuperDemiGod. Plus making Superman/Jesus comparisons is a bit boring (I mean bloody hell there's even Goku/Jesus comparisons!).

What Superman is a guy from Kansas who is trying to do the best he can with what he was given. It's just that his talents and abilities are huge and literally world changing. That's how Clark sees himself and that's how alot of the best stories of Superman in my eyes have presented him. A good part of those stories is how he struggles with those gifts and how they fit into his beliefs. Superman isn't a greek demigod, if he was he would have taken authority by now. He doesn't behave as one and should be sold as one.

Superman has repeatably in the comics put himself out there as just a guy doing what he can because it's the right thing.

[LadyTevar]

IMHO, he's supposed to be all about deliberately avoiding making himself a god even though he could very easily act like one. It's part of his ethos and what makes him approachable and likable.

Yes... but that can also be taken too far. For a really over-the-top look at Kal-El trying to be unassuming, John Cleese co-wrote a Superman graphic novel. It's ... very English. Very Pythonic.

Still, there's a very thin line any Superman movie would have to walk between humanity and hero. Batman can be dark and brooding, but Superman shouldn't be. Superman is far too open and friendly to have a dark, brooding movie like Nolan-Bats.