Tagged: superman reboot

The new “Superman” movie drops in June 2013

The forthcoming “Superman” reboot, titled “Man of Steel,” will hit theaters on June 14, 2013. It was previously expected to premiere in December 2012, which caused me to worry a tad that the film would be rushed due to legal factors. It’s nice to know they have a little more time to work on the movie and, hopefully, iron out the rumored issues plaguing the script’s third act.

“Superman” is the third superhero movie slotted for June 2013, following the third “Iron Man” (in May) and the second “Thor” (in July).

Semi-related note: “Star Trek 2,” which doesn’t have a finished script, is currently scheduled for June 29, 2012. It’s clearly going to be delayed because there’s no way that thing will be ready in 373 days. There were rumors that “Trek” would be pushed back to December of that year, which until today was already the home of two high-profile, attention-grabbing movies: “Man of Steel” and the first “Hobbit” movie. (“The Lone Ranger” and “Django Unchained” are also scheduled for that month.) Now the path is clear for Paramount to announce “Star Trek 2″ is being bumped to December 2012, which I expect, unless they move it all the way to the summer of 2013, which I doubt.

UPDATE: Brook Barnes reports that Warner Bros. is saying they moved the film because they are already releasing “The Hobbit” in December 2012.

Share

Russell Crowe might add his patented rage to the “Superman” reboot

Here’s some mildly interesting news about the “Superman” reboot: Sentient ragebot Russell Crowe is in talks to play Jor-El, Superman’s dead biological father (uh, spoiler alert, I guess?). I guess we know young Kal-El won’t be circumcised.

Marlon Brando played Jor-El in the first two “Superman” movies, and Brando famously pocketed a lot of money for a small slice of screentime. Christopher Nolan, who is producing this revamp, wanted a big name to step into Brando’s shoes (insofar as you have to step into the shoes of someone who made a relatively brief cameo in a movie more than three decades ago). Sean Penn was also “considered,” so Nolan clearly had a type in mind (and by “type,” I mean talented Oscar winners prone to violent outbursts).

Whenever I think of Brando and this role, all I can think about is the (possibly apocryphal) story of Brando suggesting that Jor-El appear as a green bagel with a Brando voiceover. That’s Method, right there.

Share

Lois Lane will be more famous than Superman

Amy Adams, who is a Disney cartoon princess come to life (“Enchanted” was a documentary, obviously), will play Lois Lane in the forthcoming “Superman” reboot. (This news comes courtesy of Geoff Boucher, who runs the excellent L.A. Times blog Hero Complex.)

Amy Adams! The three-time Oscar nominee, perpetual charmer of audiences and scene partners alike, is much more famous than her co-star, Henry Cavill. This makes me happy for some reason. Maybe it’s because of the inherent gender inequality in superhero flicks? It’s probably that. (Will their fame disparity be true three or four years after this movie comes out? It very well may be, because she is delightful, and he has a thankless role as the most boring major superhero in comics. Superman’s an iconic character, but interesting? Please.) She also joins Diane Lane and Kevin Costner, who will play Superman’s adoptive parents, and whatever classy actor is handed a huge paycheck to play the bad guy.

Adams is racking up the iconic roles/franchises these days. She’s in “The Muppets,” Jason Segel’s update of that series, which is very fitting. She’s going to play Janis Joplin, maybe, if that movie ever gets made. And now she’s Lois Lane, Superman’s journalistic paramour. (If the movie is going for modernity and realism, she’ll probably just be a Daily Planet blogger with a hyperactive Tumblr.) I can’t wait for the angry fanboys to picket the movie because Lois Lane doesn’t have red hair.

Share

Hey, speaking of unnecessary sequels and rushed productions…

Wasn’t I just saying something about unnecessary sequels and rushed productions? This story has a little bit of both.

The gist: Vulture reports that Warner Bros. has offered Guy Ritchie the job directing “Xerxes,” the sequel to “300.”

The intrigue: Zack Snyder directed “300,” and has been developing “Xerxes” with Frank Miller. Why is Warner Bros. offering his job to someone else?

The twist: There are a few reasons. For one thing, Warner Bros. needs Snyder to focus on the “Superman” reboot. They have to get the film into production soon, or they lose the rights to the estates of Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. And Vulture cites insiders who say the new “Superman” script “suffers from major third-act problems.”

Also, Warner Bros. is reportedly unhappy with “Sucker Punch,” Snyder’s forthcoming fever dream of a movie, which would make him 0-for-3 his last three times at bat (“Watchmen” and that godforsaken talking owl movie both made some money, but not nearly enough).

Why we care: Well, there’s a hope that the “Superman” reboot doesn’t suck. After all, Christopher Nolan worked with David Goyer on the script. (This is where I feel obliged to remind you that, while I am a big Christopher Nolan fan and have liked pretty much everything he’s done, his movies have tended to start strong and encounter some third act troubles; most notably “Batman Begins,” the last time he took a David Goyer idea and worked with him to expand it.)

But again, this is the problem with rushed movies. Warner Bros. doesn’t have a great concept and great director for a new “Superman.” They have a narrow window of time to launch this new thing or they financially suffer. The movie gets a release date, it gets a production schedule and, hopefully, everything else can be worked out along the way. This is troubling.

Also, why in the world is there going to be a “300″ sequel? Let’s worry about that one later, I guess.

(Also, Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” sequel has a subtitle: “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.” So I’m guessing that movie’s third act twist is that Moriarty got performance enhancers from BALCO or something.)

Share

Rosamund Pike is probably making “Clash of the Titans” sequel

Well, this is a shame: Terrific Rosamund Pike is probably going to make the sequel to “Clash of the Titans.” It’s a shame because that movie begins filming next month, which would ostensibly take her out of the running for the “Superman” reboot. I mean, you never know, they are both Warner Bros. movies, so they could make the scheduling work. But my assumption is that “Superman” > “Clash of the Titans 2: This Time, Your Migraines Might Last For Weeks.”

Share

No, Lindsay Lohan probably won’t be in the new “Superman”

No, Lindsay Lohan probably isn’t up for a role in the new “Superman” movie. But under TMZ’s incredibly SEO-happy headline, this story would like you to believe otherwise. Until this is reported by, you know, the people who report this type of news, there is no reason to believe it. There are charges of felony grand theft, there are obviously lengthy and well-documented personal issues, there’s the well-documented unreliability on film sets, there’s the issue of insurance bonding and, of course, there’s a time-sensitive franchise being overseen by precise and careful people like Christopher Nolan. Other than that, she’s probably your next Lois Lane.

Share

New “Superman” might not feature Lois Lane

There were rumors earlier this week that several actors (including Rachel McAdams and Jessica Biel) had been invited to read for the part of Lois Lane in the new “Superman” movie. Now Variety reports (via DH) that Lois Lane isn’t actually the female lead in the movie. They also reported three actors being considered for the as-yet-unnamed character: Diane Kruger (“Inglourious Basterds,” the “National Treasure” movies), Rosamund Pike (“An Education”) and Alice Eve (“She’s Out of My League”). The three were born in Europe (Kruger is German, Pike and Eve are British), so expect more pearl-clutching and trendspotting any day now.

Kruger has the highest profile of the three due to the “National Treasure” films, appearing in a Best Picture nominee and her L’Oreal campaign. But Pike is the most interesting contender. After appearing in 2002′s dreadful “Die Another Day” as a Bond girl, she has done a lot of good work and gotten a lot of notice for supporting turns in smaller movies (2005′s “Pride and Prejudice,” “An Education,” “Made in Dagenham,” “Barney’s Version”). I know the least about Eve, but she was up for “X-Men: First Class” and “Captain America,” so clearly the studios like her.

So here’s what we know: The female lead won’t be Lois Lane. That doesn’t mean Lois Lane won’t appear in the movie, but they could be casting Lana Lang (Superman’s childhood sweetheart) or another character entirely. And Variety also reports that director Zack Snyder is looking to cast his villain, but goes into no further detail about the character.

Share

Henry Cavill is Superman

Ladies and gents, we have a Superman. Henry Cavill will play the Man of Steel in the upcoming (and as-yet-untitled) “Superman” film directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan.

My first and only memory of Cavill was his role in 2002′s “The Count of Monte Cristo.” Though just 18, he was decent as the son of Dantès and Mercedes. The British actor is largely known these days for “The Tudors” or to any “Stardust” fanatics out there. Really, Cavill’s biggest claim to fame until this point was a succession of near-misses: The guy was up for the last “Superman” reboot before Bryan Singer came on board and made “Superman Returns,” he was considered for “Casino Royale” before Daniel Craig was cast and he one of the guys Christian Bale beat to get “Batman Begins.” In other words, he’s always been the guy who almost was.

Who did Cavill beat to get the role? Heat Vision says his closest competition was Matthew Goode, who costarred in Snyder’s “Watchmen.” Goode even reportedly backed out of consideration for the title role in “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” to stay open for this movie. The other actors considered largely fit what we’ve heard before: Matthew Bomer (also an also-ran who was nearly Superman the last time around), Armie Hammer (the Winklevii in “The Social Network”), Joe Manganiello (“True Blood”) and Colin O’Donaghue (who just costarred in “The Rite”).

An interesting aside to this news: Cavill is the first foreign-born actor to play Clark Kent. Actors born or raised in England now portray Superman, Batman and Spider-Man, the exalted trinity of American superheroes.

It’s hard to have a concrete take on this casting news one way or the other. Cavill has worked for years, but it’s very hard to look at an actor’s past performances and determine if they will be a great Spider-Man or Catwoman. Every Superman prior to this point has been largely unknown (whereas Bale and all of his predecessors in the cowl were established pre-”Batman”). Frankly speaking, the character is pretty damn boring. There’s a reason he’s called the Big Blue Boy Scout. Whereas Batman is all pent-up insanity, and Spider-Man is all neurotic, woe-is-me guilt, Superman is just a dull dullard who Does The Right Thing. I don’t know what is in the script or how much they try and give Clark Kent some layers, so perhaps Cavill winds up giving surprising depth to a new take on the character.

A word of caution about the movie, currently scheduled to come out in December 2012. Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. auditioned actors late last year, and Cavill met Snyder face-to-face for the first time earlier this month when the actor was invited back. The final casting decision was only made last week. There was a report last October when Snyder was hired that they picked him because they needed somebody who could quickly churn out the movie despite a rushed and iffy script. Remember, Warner Bros. has to get a new “Superman” in production this year as part of the lawsuit filed by the heirs to Superman creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel. All of that suggests that they are rushing this thing. That doesn’t mean Cavill will be bad, nor does it mean the movie will be a mess; it just means we should temper our expectations with the knowledge that this thing might not be finely-tuned when it flies into theaters.

Share

Weirdly, new “Superman” movie will feature a white male in the usual age range

BREAKING NEWS: Producers of new “Superman” movie considering white, male actors in their late 20s or early 30s. In a shocking twist, Warner Bros. is “open to creating a star” (i.e. hire a non-famous person), and in a bit of news that is completely unrelated, they’re going to hire the new guy “on the cheap” (i.e. he will not make much money, like a famous person would). And in a development so absurdly unexpected I literally fainted reading it and twice fainted composing this sentence, they are going to look at hundreds of actors, which is just a bewildering action for people in charge of a film series that could be worth billions. [Deadline]

Share

Armie Hammer may have just revealed some important “Superman” news

Fresh off his buzzy turn as both Winklevoss twins in “The Social Network,” Armie Hammer spoke to Vulture about the flick, the real life people, all that stuff you’ve already heard about. But of particular interest was his answer when asked if he or his people had reached out to Zack Snyder regarding the “Superman” reboot:

You know what’s funny? I did talk to my people recently about that for the first time, and I think they’re going a little older with Superman. I hear they’re going 35, 40.

Well! Weirdly, there’s an actor a lot of people would love to see in that role, and he is right in that age range: Jon Hamm, who turned 39 earlier this year. A lot of online chatter discounted Hamm’s chances for the role, because these superhero movies always go so young (Brandon Routh was 25 when “Superman Returns” came out, Andrew Garfield will be 28 when the new “Spider-Man” drops, et cetera) by virtue of wanting to lock down stars who can make multiple installments over a long span. (If I recall correctly, Josh Hartnett turned down the Superman role because he didn’t want to get locked in playing the same role for a decade. He just opted to play roles nobody ever saw, I guess. But other actors have said similar things about franchise roles.)

But remember Christopher Nolan’s involvement. With the sequel to “The Dark Knight” likely coming out in 2012, Christian Bale (cast in September 2003) will likely be done with that series after three films and nine years of work. Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man involvement lasted for seven years (from casting in 2000 to the third film in 2007). There are other routes, like Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine for a dozen-plus years, but Nolan has stated his focus on story over “infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story.” So it’s hard to imagine Hamm would have to play the role for longer than seven or eight years, and the dude can pull off Superman from ages 40 to 47, right?

(Of course, this flies in the face of other reports that have the new movie taking place with a young Clark Kent traveling the world and debating if he wants to be Superman. So we’ll see.)

Share