superman_emblem.jpg
It’s Superhero Thursday! News on The Bat Man and The Man of Steel

Also: How Do the Wachowski Bros. Fit In Here? / Dustin Rowles

Trade News | February 12, 2009 | Comments (49)

All right: The decent news first. Christopher Nolan has decided, apparently, that he’s going to do another film before tackling another Dark Knight movie (assuming, officially that he does (he will)). Warner Brothers has given him the green-light to direct Inception, a sci-fi action flick based on an original screenplay. The details are scant, other than that it’s being described as “a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind.” My guess: A left-brain / right-brain war where the left brain resorts to brute force but the right brain outwits it. The result: Craig Ferguson.

This doesn’t really mean a lot w/r/t The Dark Knight sequel. Nolan, after all, directed The Prestige in between the first two Batman movies, and I appreciate that the man can take a break without immediately needing to suckle on the teets of the cash cow. Plus: Nolan has never failed us (though, Insomnia was only slightly better than mediocre), so the man can do what he likes, so far as I’m concerned. I could use a Batman breather.

The more interesting news is still only in the rumor stage. According to Slashfilm, which picked the news up from the Site That Will Not Be Named (hint: It smells like corn chips), there is a possibility that the Superman reboot will be directed by the Wachowski Brothers. Apparently, Warner has approached them, and if that happens, then James McTiegue (who hinted at the possibility) would take over the Wachowski’s next project, The Plastic Man.

So, yeah: A Superman reboot directed by the Wachowskis? I dunno, folks. It seems like the Wachowski Brothers have been riding that Matrix glory for a decade now, and have never really lived up to their original promise. I am not, however, hostile to the idea. I didn’t dislike the Bryan Singer attempt, but it did feel fairly flat. A Wachowskis version might be a complete clusterfuck, but at least it’d be compelling. Just keep them away from the bright lights.


← Gigantic Trailer | All the Boys Love Mandy Lane Review →



Comments

I'm more interested in "Plastic Man." Eel O'Brien is a great character, but I'm afraid the whole thing would end up a mess of whiz-bang CGI and no plot.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at February 12, 2009 10:57 AM

what's wrong w/ AICN? I thought all your guys were fat bearded sloppy people? Stand up for your own types!

Posted by: Ted at February 12, 2009 10:58 AM

Sorry Tracer, they want Keanu to play Plastey. In reality, the best man for the job is the aptly named Conan O'Brien.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at February 12, 2009 10:59 AM

Superman reboot will be directed by the Wachowski Brothers.

Wait, reboot?

What reboot?

What the fuck, is this gonna be like "Rattle and Hum" all over again where everyone fucking apologizes for something I like?

Happy fucking Thursday.

Granted, the Wachowskis got a really damn good Batman out of Matthew Fox as Racer X, and comic book people I know are the ones who got "Speed Racer", which would imply that the Wachowskis get comic books. I just worry about the dangers in changing hands again....the specter of Jon Peters' concept....lying in wait....waiting for resurrection.....I shiver.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 11:01 AM

ZOMG More Comic book nerdiness!

Am I the only other person who didn't think the Superman reboot was that bad? The problem with that movie is that everyone inevitably compares him to the "better", original, ridiculous 70's slapstick action movie series with no discernable plot and a psychotic chick I would drop into a volcano if she was my love interest...

Supes can be fixed, just drop Darkseid or Doomsday in there with an interesting sub plot. Yeah, Superman Returns fell flat, but there's been a bunch of superhero movies which made it look like Lawrence of Arabia...

And Batman kicks ass.

Posted by: Dan at February 12, 2009 11:05 AM

The important thing for me is making something that's emotionally affecting. DC Moments. Superman and Batman are affecting because they care SO GODDAMN MUCH. They make you tear up in the right hands. Richard Donner and John Williams brought that and Bryan Singer kept it, and I don't wanna lose it.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 11:16 AM

That's also why "Spider-Man 2" is the best of that series so far.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 11:18 AM

I don't get the appeal of The Prestige. I absolutely hate that movie. I feel about The Prestige the way most people feel about most of the M. Night Shamalayan movies. Pure and utter disgust. I remember thinking as I watched it that it would never end.

I think the problem with it was that I had just seen The Illusionist recently and loved that movie. And since both movies are about magicians, my brain decided that they should be compared.

Posted by: JH at February 12, 2009 11:36 AM

Optimus Rhyme: So, lemme get this straight: They want a guy who has all the expressive range of a bucket of paste to play an unhinged ex-con who can literally become anything he wants? Looks like I put away my killin' blowtorch a bit too soon.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at February 12, 2009 11:41 AM

The Superman reboot failed because Superman is BORING, and the movie did nothing to make him interesting.

Posted by: Melissa at February 12, 2009 11:59 AM

Superman believes in you, Melissa.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 12:03 PM

C'mon Tracer, didn't you see his range in The Day the Earth Bored Me to Death? Or in Street Kings? Or the life he breathed into Constantine? Or The Devil's Advocate? Or Hardball? Or his Shakespearean eloquence in Much Ado About Nothing? Or his broad emotion in *head explodes*

Another candidate for Plastey--Jim Carrey. No I don't condone this, I'm just wondering which extreme people would prefer, wooden or unnecessarily over-the-top?

Posted by: Dan at February 12, 2009 12:05 PM

Keanu looks the part, at least based on the '70s cartoon. That was probably the only criteria.

The Wachowski's and Superman, huh. Part of me can get on board with that idea since I loved Speed Racer and the first 2 Matrix movies (yes I said 2). In the end though I think it is probably a bad idea. Superman, being all powerful and shit, needs someone who can humanize him. The Wachowski's, for all their strengths, have shown no ability in this regard.

Posted by: ed newman at February 12, 2009 12:06 PM

I have tried to watch the Superman reboot three times. I have fallen asleep three times.

That's also why "Spider-Man 2" is the best of that series so far.

Oh please tell me your kidding Jay, #2 permanently ruined the franchise for me. That EMO piece of shit can be summed up in three phrases:

*cues whiny voice*

"Who am I?"
"What should I do?"
"Why doesn't anybody understand me?"

They even gave him bangs over the eyes and eye make-up. Your Spider-Man for fucks sakes! Man the fuck up and grow a pair!

Posted by: admin at February 12, 2009 12:13 PM

"A Wachowskis version might be a complete clusterfuck, but at least it'd be compelling." I'm sorry, but there are many words that could have described Speed Racer, and "compelling" wasn't one of them.

Posted by: spazmodeas at February 12, 2009 12:22 PM

The guy who SHOULD have been Plastic Man was Bruce Campbell. Now? Maybe Ryan Reynolds (hey, his body looks like it's made of plastic already). There just aren't a lot of actors with the right mix of cool/funny/crazy for the part.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at February 12, 2009 12:37 PM

admin, I think you're thinking of Spiderman 3. I never saw it and I don't recall emo eye makeup in Spidey 2. Spidey 2 had the fucking brilliant Doc Ock portrayal by my beloved Alfred Molina, I love that movie so much, and it's all for him. I have to contend that's one of the best comic book supervillain portrayals in recent memory.

Doc Ock makes me cry at the end of that movie. And if you continue to knock it or mix it up with Spidey 3 I may have to come find you...

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at February 12, 2009 12:46 PM

I'm sick of effing Ryan Reynolds. HOLY CRAP YOU CRACKED A JOKE IN BLADE AND THREW PUNCHES LETS GIVE YOU A CAREER!

The high point of this guys' "career" is Van Wilder...think about that. He can be somewhat entertaining but he displays zero range, which limits him to at best a part player in an ensemble cast. They have a "Top 5 Performances" thread on his IMDB page...that's like listing "Top 5 Contributions to Society" by the Jonas Brothers.

His Deadpool costume looks about as half-assed as that last metaphor by the way...

Posted by: Dan at February 12, 2009 12:54 PM

And if you continue to knock it or mix it up with Spidey 3 I may have to come find you...

What she said.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 1:02 PM

Okay, lots to say and no time to read everyone's comments.

First off, it's "Batman". Not "Bat Man". Grammar Nazis are set to storm Pajiba offices in 3...2...now.

Second, good for Nolan. IIRC, he's always pushed for story over substance, and if he cranked out a Dark Knight sequel too soon the story'd probably suffer. I know Bale feels that way, and I doubt he'd be persuaded to put on the cowl again just for a dumptruck full of money.

Hmm...maybe a BIG dumptruck. Anyway...

No, I'm one of those that did NOT think "Superman Returns" sucked. I actually kinda liked it, but I liked it BETTER when it was "Superman: The Movie" back in '78. And as far as the W Bros directing a Superman film? Yeah, go watch the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith in the last "Matrix" movie and tell me they can't handle a superfight. It'd be awesome.

In fact, I'll even give you the perfect villain: Mr. Mxyzptlk. It's not like Superman can punch or lift himself out of danger with the guy...plus he'd be kinda wacky and goofy so there's your "kid friendly" element right there.

The most powerful man on Earth having to THINK his way out of a problem against a magical imp that can do anything? Yeah, that could be a good 2 hour film for kids from 8 to 80, methinks.

Discuss, fellow nerds!

Posted by: Green Lantern at February 12, 2009 1:14 PM

As long as it doesn't feature Lex yet again masterminding a real estate scheme I'll be happy.

"Superman Returns" had its' moments but the plot was it's undoing. I just could not get my head wrapped around Lex's grand plan to destroy the land in order to sell islands made of kryptonite rock for people to live on. He could have at least stolen the Genesis device and tried to make the place look hospitable. I just didn't see him having a lot of buyers for those charming homesteads. So that kind of ruined the movie for me.

Posted by: TylerDFC at February 12, 2009 1:33 PM

I'm telling you. Conan O'Brien is Plastic Man. He's tall and lanky and goofy and wise-cracking. Perfect man for the job. Just imagine him in that costume! Oh... wait... no thanks.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at February 12, 2009 2:02 PM

Anne(in reno), upon further consideration you are partially correct. They used the eye make-up in #3, but the whiny bitch was in spiderman two. Even my wife, who will cry at the Royal Tissue kitty commercials, thought it was a crybaby bitchfest.

I will give you that Molina and his portrayal of Doc Ock were very good, but the rest made me want to slap everybody involved.

Posted by: admin at February 12, 2009 2:25 PM

Soooo you hate emotion and story then?

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 3:06 PM

I thought that Hilton boy was the site that will not be named?

Posted by: catag at February 12, 2009 3:39 PM

Soooo you hate emotion and story then?

Not at all. But to me, all the angst felt fake and out of place.

Posted by: admin at February 12, 2009 4:06 PM

Aunt May's speech and the collapse on the train?


Nothing?


Jesus!

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 4:31 PM

My guess: A left-brain / right-brain war where the left brain resorts to brute force but the right brain outwits it. The result: Craig Ferguson.

That is pretty much the only way to describe that wonderful man.

Superman Returns would have been great if Singer realized he didn't have to make up for Superman 3 and 4 by remaking 1. The Wachowskis aren't known for subtlety, so maybe their version will be so out there that the two films combined will make a decent movie.

admin, I got your back. While all the emotional stuff was touching, there was nothing to dilute it. There was no light-hearted moments, no wisecracking, nothing but bitching and moaning. Considering that so many people hated the constant stream of "I'm sick of Spider-Man ad I QUIT" storylines in the comics, it amazes me so many loved the movie.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 12, 2009 6:14 PM

There was no light-hearted moments, no wisecracking, nothing but bitching and moaning.


Bruce Campbell, Hal Sparks, J.K. Simmons & Ted Raimi (continued) and "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head"?

Plus the totally Evil Dead birth of Doctor Octopus.

Are we talking about the same movie?

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 6:24 PM

Plus that bit where the super's daughter baked him some cake.

That was aces.

Posted by: twig at February 12, 2009 7:14 PM

Yes we are talking about the same movie Jay. I was so sick of the "should I be/shouldn't I be" that I just wanted him to make a fucking decision and get the movie over with. I thought it really sucked the life out of what could have been a good flick.

Posted by: admin at February 12, 2009 7:52 PM

But that was kinda....the plot. So Hamlet shoulda cut the bullshit and capped some frontin' Danish motherfuckers?

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season

Posted by: twig at February 12, 2009 8:24 PM

Absolutely not!

Hamlet was entertaining.

Posted by: admin at February 12, 2009 9:28 PM

Well, I'm stil wondering what the hell you wanted the story to be.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 9:55 PM

Bruce Campbell, Hal Sparks, J.K. Simmons & Ted Raimi (continued) and "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head"?

None of whom were playing Peter Parker or Spider-Man. Yeah they were entertaining (I would not dare disparage The Chin), but it isn't very much when the protagonist and emotional center of the movie is such a whiny lump.

Half the fun of Spider-Man the comic character is his wisecracking. I could understand why the first movie glossed over that aspect, because it was the origin movie and he hadn't developed that style yet. But the second movie, they couldn't let him have a snappy retort on his own?

Posted by: Vermillion at February 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Yes we are talking about the same movie Jay. I was so sick of the "should I be/shouldn't I be" that I just wanted him to make a fucking decision and get the movie over with.

But that was kinda....the plot.

It was also kinda the plot in the first and third movies as well. All they did was change the reason behind it:

Movie 1: Being a superhero or superdillweed - should I or shouldn't I?

Movie 2: Staying a superhero or being a superdillweed - should I or shouldn't I?

Movie 3: Being a non-possessed superhero or become a emo-douche superdillweed - you know the rest.

He never got a chance to actually enjoy being a hero. Either he got a big head and acted like a jackass, or he is brought crashing down and starts moping about how Spider-Man ruined his life.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 12, 2009 10:30 PM

Okay, but that's not what you said (though Peter is what's funny about the elevator scene). Still, I disagree that he's a whiny lump. Kid had things on his mind!

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 10:35 PM

I didn't sense an existential crisis in the first one, and I think it seems clear that he's having a good time when he's on the job, in fact too good a time sometimes and forgets everything else.

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2009 10:40 PM

I didn't sense an existential crisis in the first one, and I think it seems clear that he's having a good time when he's on the job, in fact too good a time sometimes and forgets everything else.

Really? It always seemed like whenever he seemed to actually display any joy in being Spidey, either he gets an ego and starts being an ass to everyone or he is crushingly reminded how much it sucks. It is fine every once in a while, but not every single time, otherwise I wonder why he even bothers putting the damn costume on. He never had a chance to simply be happy without serving penance for it.

Spidey gets to say and do things Parker doesn't get a chance to. He can be flippant, he can be snarky, he can be cool. He is supposed to be able to witty-banter the hell out of anyone. And maybe if he had more of those moments, it would add more dramatic weight to those moments when he gets really real.

I will admit that I should have said my original post was referring to Spidey himself. But considering the movie isn't called Awesome Theater Doorman, my point stands.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 13, 2009 12:57 AM

Jay, did you read the Spder-Man comics? I ask because I'm wondering if this may be influencing your perspective.

My own experience is limited to the movies and the cartoon series (which I watched religiously). As such, when I watched the movie, I found the four hour identity crisis distracting and unnecessary.

Take The Dark Knight for example. While Bruce Wayne questions both the validity of his cause and his ability to see it through, it doesn't dominate the movie to the point where all the other struggles become minor plot points.

I will admit that I don't recall quite a bit of Spider-Man 2. Mainly because my impression was that Peter was sad and that's all I needed to know. Honestly, they might as well have just had some dude walk in to every-other scene, holding up a sign saying, "Look at Spider-Man! He's confused and conflicted! What will he do!?"

No sir.................I don't like it.

Posted by: admin at February 13, 2009 1:01 AM

Unfortunately it's too easy for writers to pidgeonhole comic book characters, and Spidey is by a great example. The indelible imagine you have of Peter Parker is sad Tobey Maguire with his mouth slightly open and his eyes glazed over like the worlds loneliest zombie cocksucker. All of the movies had action and were entertaining, but missed the fun that made the comics likeable.

By overdoing the fairly pedestrian problems plaguing Peter Parker (holy excessive alliteration Batman!) he turned into a whiny bitch who one-ups his ex-girl by dancing AT her in a bar...

The reason Bruce Wayne works is for the reason admin posted, and because Nolan does a wonderful job having side characters given simple motivations which are expanded by the actors, like Michael Caine as Alfred. The contrast to this is Kirsten Dunst, who lacks the qualities that made Mary Jane "cool". In the comics, she is fun, smart, ATTRACTIVE, and has a real life.

Posted by: Dan at February 13, 2009 5:52 AM

Interesting. No, I'm not a long-time follower of his books themselves, but it would seem that Vermillion is and it's a difference in tone from some of the books that bothered him while not bothering me.

Anyway, I can't help it that I think it's an affecting, relatable story about real things (which is what Lee and Ditko designed the character to be) and my life was certainly sinking when it came out, so I couldn't give a shit that there aren't more jokes.

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2009 8:28 AM

Anyway, I can't help it that I think it's an affecting, relatable story about real things (which is what Lee and Ditko designed the character to be) and my life was certainly sinking when it came out, so I couldn't give a shit that there aren't more jokes.

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive or something.

Regardless, that was just my feelings about the films. I understand that it connected to you differently, and I didn't mean to offend you or anything.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 13, 2009 8:50 AM

Oh, no offense, certainly. It does seem here that 2 has been brought under 3 as part of one big failed arc, kinda retroactively tainting it. I just think "ehhhh, 3 wasn't as good. I liked what it was about but it certainly could've played better" (see also: The Phantom Menace). But I still regard 2 as its own thing.

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2009 9:04 AM

I missed the title of the project, and all I saw was "a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind," and this almost became the happiest day of my life. I guess I'll die before a Psychonauts movie is released.

Posted by: Greg at February 13, 2009 1:25 PM

my problem with singer's superman was that it paid too homage to donner's superman instead of him adding his own piece to the superman mythos the only thing he added was lois lane having a kid

Posted by: ken at February 14, 2009 4:35 AM

"The Site That Shall Not Be Named"? That site is what you use to get your news from all the time. It's AICN, and don't hate their swagger.

Posted by: Harry Knows at February 14, 2009 6:46 PM

Did you actually like The prestige ?

Posted by: Bale is not that into u at February 15, 2009 6:13 PM