Ratner proposes 'Superman' Trilogy

[James Harvey]

According to www.variety.com Warner Bros. was sticking with Brett Ratner as the director for Superman all along. Variety has published a great article on the latest rumors that claimed Ratner was off the project and that Michael Bay may have been interested. Ratner also mentions some great bits that he is looking to direct three films and that he has indeed talked to Jude and Josh about the lead role.

When I wrote this week that Chris Nolan will direct a Batman film, I mentioned that Ratner was readying "Superman." I got several calls, claiming Ratner was out. Then I got called on the carpet by the Web site Ain't It Cool News, for being so misinformed. It said that Ratner had actually vacated the film a month ago, long enough for a negotiation with Michael Bay to heat up and cool off.

At the risk of screwing up a really juicy rumor that, like Superman, moves faster than a speeding bullet, I reached out to Bay and Ratner.

"This is 100% false," Bay said. "I haven't spoken to anybody at Warner Bros. about 'Superman.' I have no idea how this rumor got started. Isn't Brett doing 'Superman'?"

That was my question to Ratner, who wondered why WB is still paying him such whopping weekly checks if he's been off the film for four weeks.

"This is the most ridiculous rumor I've ever heard, and it starts with Web sites that have gone from supportive cinefiles to (being) gossip mongers," Ratner said. "The studio is spending multiple millions of dollars making test deals with the actors I want. They're paying me, my DP, my AD, my editor, my props guy."

"The whole hiccup here has been our search for Superman," he said. "I'm at CAA, just like Michael Bay, I make as much money as he does. They would not jeopardize pissing me off by negotiating behind my back. I'd know."

I toss him a few more rumors I've heard on my own. I hear Ratner's in a holding deal that expires next week, and could leave if WB doesn't pay or play him. The studio understandably wants to be sure "Superman" flies before paydays are promised, because pricey pay-or-play settlements were given to both Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton when the pic was scrapped in 1998 over script problems and a $140 million budget. And what about the rumors that the new pic's budget is over $200 million, with WB insisting that it not exceed $180 million. Or that Josh Hartnett was top choice, but wouldn't sign a deal with two pre-negotiated sequels, which led him to schedule tests with Jude Law, Ashton Kutcher, Brendan Fraser?

"North of $200 million is a lie, we won't have a budget for three weeks," said Ratner, who acknowledged his top choices for Man of Steel were reluctant to make long-term pacts. "No star wants to sign that, but as much as I've told Jude and Josh my vision for the movie, I've warned them of the consequences of being Superman. They'll live this character for 10 years because I'm telling one story over three movies and plan to direct all three if the first is as successful as everyone suspects."

Interesting...

[Patrick Bateman]

I think it sounds promising that Ratner actually wants to make sure they do this thing right. And I think Jude Law would be an excellent Superman. People may argue that he doesn't have the muscle for it or whatever, but to that I say look at Tobey Maguire. He put on a great deal of muscle mass for Spider-Man, so it can be done. And one other thing, don't pull a Lois & Clark: Superman MUST have the spitcurl. :D

[The Guard]

Well, well, well. So the constant AICN rumors AREN'T always true. Interesting. Perhaps some of the fans could learn from this "SUPERMAN is dead" experience?

[DR.MID-NITE]

Ratner should do what he mentioned when he first took the job. That he might go for an unknown to play Supes. That is the best decision. Their has to be an unknown actor who has the look of Superman and can act. And besides it would be easier to sign an unknown to a three movie deal. And for those who say you need a big name. Christopher Reeve was an unknown actor.

[BeastBoyWonder]

This is good news... its also more evidence to NOT trust anything coming from AICN.

[Terminatah]

Jude and Josh (and any unknown actors like them) would be wrong for the role. You might as well get Keanu.

Jude Law doesn't have the right face or build. 1978 Christopher Reeve could kick his ass. Jude should be playing someone like the Joker, or a revamped Otis. And I'm not basing this on any of his earlier roles. People often make the mistake of typecasting actors like that ("Gee, that Boreanaz guy plays a dark hero on Angel, he would make a perfect Batman, hehehe" -- no he wouldn't, he would suck ass). Yes, Law has talent, but not the look. SORRY, HOLLYWOOD.

And Josh Hartnett, besides also not looking right (he's pretty much the opposite of Chris Reeve), is too little. Tom "Smallville" Welling is older than Josh Hartnett. Bigger too. Let Hartnett play Jimmy Olsen and end it.

Maybe if they cast both Jude and Josh as Superman, and they could kinda stand on each other's shoulders, and then they computer animated half of Superman's scenes. I could see that. Also, if they used stock footage from the 1978 one.

-Terminatah

[Kal-el]

Out of the rumored choices mentioned, none seem to fit my view of Supes. Not even close really. Heck, I'd be happier if they were considering "Joe Millionaire" for the part.

It's too bad Tom Welling isn't being considered.

[Enrique]

tom welling is just way too young to play an adult superman, and frankly, i don't think he's that great an actor.

[Kal-el]

Based on the actors names thrown around it would seem the Superman being envisioned isn't that old...maybe early-mid 20's or so. Compared to the others being rumored, Welling might fit in with that group (he is 25 after all).

[Terminatah]

Superman should be in his 30's, at least.

-Terminatah

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Kal-el
Based on the actors names thrown around it would seem the Superman being envisioned isn't that old...maybe early-mid 20's or so. Compared to the others being rumored, Welling might fit in with that group (he is 25 after all).

And even if Superman isn't that young, Welling could easily be made to look older. But if Welling were to play Superman, I'd want to see Michael Rosenbaum as Luthor. And, I'd want references to Smallville and the fact that the two knew each other before they came to Metropolis. Since this project wouldn't be connected to Smallville and none of those references would be there, I'd rather see somebody else play Supes and Lex.

[DisneyBoy]

I think the films will end up veering away from Smallville references which could tie the show into a bit of a knot, or stir controversy among the fans. Tom Welling is doing an Ok Clark, in my opinion, but also setting him to star in a Superman movie would make it all seem like Smallville: The Big Screen, rather than an independant project. Still, I think it would be kinda cool if something in the movies strikes a cord with the Smallville fans, since the series is so big right now.

I'm completely for Jude Law as Superman, provided he does a good job, of course. I've liked him in all his past performances, and he definately has the face to play Clark. I'm not at all worried about the whole "beefing up" issue - a few months in a gym and voila! I wonder who is being considered to play Lois Lane...? With Spiderman being the big thing these days, and his alter-ego, Peter Parker, working at a newspaper while pursuing Mary-Jane, I wonder if the movie-audience will feel the whole Daily Planet/Lois+Clark aspect of upcoming Superman films too reminiscent. The last thing I'd want is for Superman to be compared endlessly to Spiderman, or to be released on the heels of Spidy's sequels. They're both icons, so I kinda hope the film only comes out in some five years.

Still, it's nice to hear someone actually involved with the project speaking frankly about rumours. I'm happy that WB is keeping up with this project...let's just hope they do the same with Batman. One last thought: Does everything have to be an epic Trilogy these days?

[Damien]

Making a Superman movie with ties to "Smallville" would only be a good idea after the series ends. The producers say they plan on the last episode showing Clark packing up the costume and heading for Metropolis. If they make a movie starring Welling, it should pick up there.

As for Jude Law, Hartnett, actually any of these other actors named, it's a bad idea. Like many have said, they just don't have the build, but more importantly the face. This is why I like Welling's Clark Kent. That's pretty much what I would think a younger Superman would look like.
Another good point was that Christopher Reeve was unknown when cast, as was Welling. That's what they need to do for the next Superman. (Heck, do that with Batman, too, unless we have an older Batman played by Michael Keaton, or Bruce Thompson from the OnStar commercials). There's not a guy I can think of who would make a decent Superman, except maybe the guy who plays John Doe.
Also, what about the rumors of a Batman/Superman movie? Or the Batman: Year One movie? What ever happened to that?

[Patrick Bateman]

Also, what about the rumors of a Batman/Superman movie? Or the Batman: Year One movie? What ever happened to that?
I'm pretty sure that Batman/Superman movie is 100% dead. And Year One looks like it'll never get off of the back burner. :(

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by DisneyBoy
One last thought: Does everything have to be an epic Trilogy these days?

I think it's better that way. Star Trek, for instance, has been hurt by the fact that it's episodic. Every aspect of Nemesis had been done before in Trek. It needed something bigger, more epic, that would take it past the normal Trek boundaries. With something like a trilogy, there's more time to tell a great story.

[Damien]

True, but Superman needs to be longer than a trilogy. It can't just be one story. Superman has endless stories to show on the screen. However, they need to avoid the unfortunate mishaps of the Batman franchise and, as was mentioned, Star Trek (and Star Wars as of Ep. 2).

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Damien
True, but Superman needs to be longer than a trilogy. It can't just be one story.

Sure. There could be more than one trilogy, for instance.

[Simpler Simon]

Making everything a trilogy is feeling more and more like a decision made by the suits solely for the purpose of $$$ rather than a creative decision. Yes, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are trilogies, but they were concieved as trilogies. With Superman, you have a potentially limitless number of stories to tell; leave yourself some open-ended plot threads you could pick up on should the first movie do well (ex: Harry Osborne swearing revenge in Spider-Man), but don't go in with a trilogy in mind.

[Damien]

Now, DarkAngel, that would be silly.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by CaptainJustice
With Superman, you have a potentially limitless number of stories to tell; leave yourself some open-ended plot threads you could pick up on should the first movie do well (ex: Harry Osborne swearing revenge in Spider-Man), but don't go in with a trilogy in mind.

If a trilogy does well, the series would continue and there'd be plenty of opportunity for single movie stories.

Damien, all I'm saying is that doing a trilogy doesn't mean the series ends there. More movies could be done after that. And having two trilogies is hardly silly if the story is a good one.

[Damien]

I see your point, but you can't just keep making trilogies to avoid being hurt by being to "episodic". Trilogies, esp. more than one, would be too "episodic" in themselves.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Damien
I see your point, but you can't just keep making trilogies to avoid being hurt by being to "episodic". Trilogies, esp. more than one, would be too "episodic" in themselves.

It shouldn't be forced. I would like to see a trilogy. After that, if the initial three are successful enough, they could do single-story movies. And I'm not opposed to an episodic series, either. Ultimately, I just want strong storytelling.

[BeastBoyWonder]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
It shouldn't be forced. I would like to see a trilogy. After that, if the initial three are successful enough, they could do single-story movies. And I'm not opposed to an episodic series, either. Ultimately, I just want strong storytelling.

Right. As long as the stories are interesting and engaging, nothing else really matters.

[Damien]

Well then, I guess ultimately we all agree.

[Failure]

I think "Trilogy" is just a buzz word in Hollywood right now. Why doesn't anyone make a "Duology" or "Quadrilogy"?

As for casting, I'm going to vehemently oppose casting Tom Welling as Superman. Not that I don't like him, I do. I think he does a great job on Smallville. But if the movies don't have anything to do with Smallville, I'd like for them to keep both the show & movies in separate universes.

[Comic Book Boy]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
And one other thing, don't pull a Lois & Clark: Superman MUST have the spitcurl. :D

Yeah I agree!

P.s. Nice avatar By1

[SilverKnight]

Originally posted by DisneyBoy
One last thought: Does everything have to be an epic Trilogy these days? I say, better to have a cool epic Trilogy than one great movie, one pretty good movie, one sorta good movie, and one craptastic movie.

Besides, in almost all movie history, any movie that ends with "4" winds up being horribly bad. The only one so far that proves this wrong is Lethal Weapon 4. So, them ending at 3 seems to get a great idea. :D

[sKorpia]

I'd heard some time ago that Bats vs. Supes was going to be made after the Supes movie and B:YO were finished so that those two would be a build-up to the confrontation between them. In which case, it's kinda like a built-in sequel. I dunno . . .

Yeah, I like Jude Law and all but as Superman . . . noooooooooo. Superman should not be blond or brunette. Black hair rules! (And just because I have black hair doesn't mean I'm biased or anything. :p )