Superman: Man of Steel ***SPOILERS***

[livid]

Figured I'd start a topic for it since it seems the casting/directing rumors are on the edge of running rampant with this news:

Looks like it's about that time for the Superman rumors to start infiltrating our Man of Steel-lovin' brains as folks at Warner Bros. apparently move toward the next step of production by seeking out a director and star. While last week's rumor that Chris Columbus was up for the directorial gig was quickly debunked, the fact that we're beginning to hear more and more rumblings probably means the wheels are definitely beginning to turn.

This latest rumor comes from Geek Tyrant, who claim their sources "on the lot" have informed them that Jonathan Nolan (Christopher Nolan's brother) is currently the "unannounced director" of the new Superman movie. The other Nolan has been rumored to be up for the gig ever since his brother came onboard to sort of "godfather" the project with writer David Goyer. I'm not sure if Warners would give such a large project to a first-time director like Jonathan, especially with Christopher off waist-deep in another Batman movie and not readily available to help his brother out. That said, if there was a package deal agreed upon when Nolan and Goyer came on -- and if that deal involved Jonathan directing the movie -- then maybe there is some truth to it. If that wasn't originally part of the deal, though, then I just don't see them trusting this big of a movie to a first-time director. But I guess we'll see.

The other part of the rumor is a lot more intriguing to me as it signals the start of another casting circus. And if it's anything like the recent Spider-Man casting debacle, then we're in for one heckuva overly annoying ride. Find out who they're looking at after the jump ...


I really dig Zachary Levi. If it was up to me, I'd halt everything right here and sign the guy up to play Superman. One thing Levi brings to the table that Routh didn't is instant charisma. You can't help but like the guy. If you've watched the TV show Chuck, then you're familiar with Levi -- you know he can do the clumsy, fish-out-of-water thing -- but at the end of the day he's got a great contemporary Clark Kent look going on, and he's definitely capable of turning on the action if need be. Plus he's not too big of a name, but he's familiar enough to get people excited about the project. I like Levi. I like Levi a lot.

Whether or not this is just another bogus rumor or if there's some truth to it, we don't really know just yet (I'd expect to hear denials from the Levi camp within 24 hours). What do you think about Levi as Superman? Does he work? And what about Jonathan Nolan as director? Shouldn't the guy have to prove himself in front of the camera before landing one of the biggest (and most important) directorial gigs of the decade?

I hadn't thought about it before but Levi would actually be a pretty good choice. He's bulked up a bit for Chuck over the past year or so and he's definitely shown he can play the bumbling guy but he's also shown he can play the "hero" as of late, as well.

And as far as Jonah Nolan goes...I'm not sure that WB would really give the reigns to one of the most iconic characters in the world to a guy who hasn't directed a movie before but given his last name, I guess I could see why they might look into it. Still, I doubt he ends up being the guy they choose, especially with Christopher Nolan's schedule getting a bit more full with Batman 3 coming up.

[TKz]

Levi is a perfect modern day Clark Kent. I just don't know if I can buy him being bulked up enough to play Superman. Would be nicely ironic after Brandon Routh appearing in Chuck, too.

[TGC]

I love Chuck, and I think Levi is a great actor, but I can not see him as Superman at all. Clark Kent, sure, but Superman no.

I also can't see them trusting the Superman revamp/reboot to someone who has never directed a film before, regardless of his last name. The studio apparently rejected David Gpyer, the man that wrote The Blade films and both Batman films and has directed before. I agree with that decision by the way, but if they are going to say no to him I can't see them saying yes to a first time director.

[Hellfire]

I'd be happy with a Levi/J. Nolan combination. I'm not really a fan of Superman but they haven't really done much with him movie wise recently and a reboot would make sense. If Johnathan Nolan picked up some tricks from his brother I think it'd be in good hands too. Really, it couldn't be any worse than the last superman movie.

[TKz]

They need to pick up the rights to his origins if they're doing a Superman movie though. I mean, they can survive without it, but I don't think I'd want to see a Superman movie that didn't feature Jor-El explaining what happened to Krypton.

[DFF]

Didn't Jonathan Nolan write the novella that Christopher based Memento on?

[Rich]

Tom Welling for Clark Kent!

[TGC]

Everyone knows Superman's origins. They can spend 4 minutes on it if they want, but we don't need half a movie before we see Superman in action.

[Jimmy]

I'd love to see J.Nolan take the reigns. If he's even half as good as Chris, the project's in safe hands. The guy's a good writer and got a writing credit on The Dark Knight and Inception(?). So I think he knows what to do with a story - so I think he'd be a pretty good director for it.

Levi definitely has the charm of Clark Kent. But I can't imagine him as Superman. I just can't quite picture it.

[TKz]

Everyone knows Superman's origins. They can spend 4 minutes on it if they want, but we don't need half a movie before we see Superman in action.

Oh no, totally, but you can't have a Superman movie without some kind of explanation of where he's from. You can't just not reference Krypton or Kryptonite or Jor-El or those sorts of things. They're a massive part of his story. I agree you don't need much of an origins explanation, but he'll be a pretty empty character if you take away the fact he's from Krypton and all that. If nothing else, they have to include The Fortress/Jor-El in some capacity which would result in a reference to something from the origins.

[livid]

So, bumping this because there's some rumors for the director's chair...

Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas have started interviewing directors for the upcoming Superman reboot, reports Deadline.

The rumored list includes Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code), Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, Battle: Los Angeles and just-signed for Clash of the Titans 2), Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In), Tony Scott (True Romance, Unstoppable), and Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300).

The article suggests that a decision will be made in the next few weeks so that production on the project can be fast-tracked to make a 2012 release.

I hadn't thought of Duncan Jones before but that's actually a really intriguing idea. The only that worries me is the fact that he hasn't done a whole lot. I mean, Moon was fantastic, but there's no record of consistency, though I would imagine he would do well. Liebesman seems like the new it guy in Hollywood for big budget movies but would probably be a fairly meh choice. Reeves is interesting, as well because Let Me In is getting fantastic reviews and he did a pretty good job with the direction in Cloverfield. I love Man on Fire and True Romance is awesome but I'm not sure that Scott would be a good choice, though if Nolan gets him to cut back on the effects he uses, it might be a decent choice. Snyder seems like a natural choice, given his history with comic book movies and just also being apart of reviving a dead franchise.

Interesting group of names though.

[Jimmy]

I loved Moon. But it would be nice to see Source Code before judging Duncan Jones as a director. But, off that list, he'd be my pick. Synder's all about artsy slow-mo; and I'm not sure where that fits with the Superman franchise.

[LL!]

I'd be happy to see what Duncan Jones or Matt Reeves can do with it. Just.. please.. don't give it to Tony Scott...

[GRIFT]

Ugh. I don't know why but I can't stand Levi. I am one of the few on this board who doesn't like Chuck, but that bias aside I feel the same way about him playing Superman as I felt about John Krasinski (who I do like) being up for Captain America. They are both just too damn quirky, and to me don't have the build or look to pull off the SUPER hero half of the equation. With both I think that, at best, they'd be able to play the man but not the hero.

For me, Superman is one of the few heroes who doesn't need to be adjusted to be contemporary. He doesn't need to be young, he doesn't need to be dark. Give me a 35 year old Superman. It helps to give him the gravitas, and majesty that make the character. Don't shave his corners to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Part of what I love with that character is that he is an odd man out. Not just because of his unparalleled might, but because of his unmatched will to uphold his ideals. He is the embodiment of truth, justice, and that 1950's feel-good-apple-pie-American way. Can you make a dark story around him? Yes. The best stories show his morals being tested, but him rising to the occasion to scatter that same darkness. Give us a story about him finding a way to deal with his outdated ideals and finding his place in the world instead of another origin movie. Give me a Superman who has saved the world a few times and is now asking, why? But most of all, give me someone who looks like a Superman. Give me someone who I don't think I could beat the shit out of in a dirty bar fight. With Superman, his secret identity is the mask. He hunches over, he covers his face. Don't cast Clark Kent, and hope he can play Superman. Cast Superman and have him play down to Clark Kent!

I guess what I am saying is "What ever happened to the sqaure jawed, wide shouldered man of tomorrow?

[Crybaby Bunting]

A tenner bet says that this film absolutely bombs in the cinemas, the director tosses about the idea for a sequel and five years later we get another reboot.

It wouldn't be Superman without this...

[Guest Jacob]

It is pretty strange that from all the superhero movies that have been rehashed, rebooted and sequeled to high heaven in the past decade or so, Superman has not really burst through the Box Office roof.

Hell every IWC fan thinks John Cena is Superman already...give him the role!

[marksbros6]

Ugh. I don't know why but I can't stand Levi. I am one of the few on this board who doesn't like Chuck, but that bias aside I feel the same way about him playing Superman as I felt about John Krasinski (who I do like) being up for Captain America. They are both just too damn quirky, and to me don't have the build or look to pull off the SUPER hero half of the equation. With both I think that, at best, they'd be able to play the man but not the hero.

For me, Superman is one of the few heroes who doesn't need to be adjusted to be contemporary. He doesn't need to be young, he doesn't need to be dark. Give me a 35 year old Superman. It helps to give him the gravitas, and majesty that make the character. Don't shave his corners to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Part of what I love with that character is that he is an odd man out. Not just because of his unparalleled might, but because of his unmatched will to uphold his ideals. He is the embodiment of truth, justice, and that 1950's feel-good-apple-pie-American way. Can you make a dark story around him? Yes. The best stories show his morals being tested, but him rising to the occasion to scatter that same darkness. Give us a story about him finding a way to deal with his outdated ideals and finding his place in the world instead of another origin movie. Give me a Superman who has saved the world a few times and is now asking, why? But most of all, give me someone who looks like a Superman. Give me someone who I don't think I could beat the shit out of in a dirty bar fight. With Superman, his secret identity is the mask. He hunches over, he covers his face. Don't cast Clark Kent, and hope he can play Superman. Cast Superman and have him play down to Clark Kent!

I guess what I am saying is "What ever happened to the sqaure jawed, wide shouldered man of tomorrow?

Seconded! Greatest person to play Supes, hands down, was Christopher Reeve. He looked the part of Superman (If I recall he'd been working out with David Prowse - who was a bodybuilder before being Darth Vader remember - to bulk up for the part), and he was believable as Clark Kent as well.

I just don't see why we bother with all the Superman reboots and making it a big event. We've had the DEFINITIVE Superman, I can't picture anyone else playing that character.

That said with Smallville coming to an end I don't see why that can't transition to the big screen and continue the franchise there. Not seen any of season 10 but if they are sticking to Clark not wearing the uniform it would work well as a big screen follow-up to the series. Superman may have been done definitivly but Tom Welling's version of the character is different. X-files and the various Star Trek movies show that it can be done, and there is a ready made audience who'd pay for a big screen outing I'd bet. And Welling is older than you think, he was playing 'Teenage Clark' in his mid-twenties (think he had kids himself by that time!) he could carry off an older Superman.

[Crybaby Bunting]

It is pretty strange that from all the superhero movies that have been rehashed, rebooted and sequeled to high heaven in the past decade or so, Superman has not really burst through the Box Office roof.

Actually, no. Of all the superhero characters that have eventually turned into a movie in recent times, Superman is the weakest character by far.

Superhero comics of the 60s prided themselves on having characters that were so utterly powerful and awesome that the story wasn't IF they were going to beat the bad guy but more HOW they are going to use their awesome powers to defeat the bad guys. And they were bad guys, bad guys with absolutely NO positive qualities to them which made them such clear cut villains that even a slight amount of sympathy would make you out to be a nut case.

Of course, the 80s saw a new audience emerging, an audience who wasn't convinced with clear cut heroes and villains, they wanted to have their moralities questioned. The likes of Alan Moore and co. helped to set the ball rolling in this new uncharted climate. So Batman became less of a camp superhero and more a troubled crimefighter trying to make his way through a world that didn't understand him, The Joker became a VERY interesting character, Spider-man rebooted and focussed more on the character of Peter Parker. This change allowed the likes of Spawn, Deadpool, Watchmen etc. to exist; completely new heroes (anti-heroes?) which were several shades darker than anything before in the Marvel/DC universe.

And Superman remained a walking contradiction, sure there'd be darker story lines every now and again... but most of them were standalone 'what if' scenarios that meant that his character NEVER had the change to separate him from the 60s 'smash everything' character. So of course, the only audience that would buy the Superman story hook-line-and-sinker would be the people aged 6-13 devoid of ANY emotional responsibility. Which leads to an ironic twist, most of the Superman movies have tried to turn themselves into a romance/origins story... yet this is the sort of film that completely alienates the young audience who crave camp and colourful comedy violence and tries to showcase itself to the more 'mature' comic book fan. Rugged Superman is trying to aim itself at an audience that doesn't exist... cue it bombing in every cinema as no-one honestly knows how to market something for an audience like this.

I mean come on, his tagline is that he's invincible... so how is ANYONE honestly going to feel that he's experiencing anything other than mild peril?

[ClaRK! Kent]

And Superman remained a walking contradiction, sure there'd be darker story lines every now and again... but most of them were standalone 'what if' scenarios that meant that his character NEVER had the change to separate him from the 60s 'smash everything' character. So of course, the only audience that would buy the Superman story hook-line-and-sinker would be the people aged 6-13 devoid of ANY emotional responsibility. Which leads to an ironic twist, most of the Superman movies have tried to turn themselves into a romance/origins story... yet this is the sort of film that completely alienates the young audience who crave camp and colourful comedy violence and tries to showcase itself to the more 'mature' comic book fan. Rugged Superman is trying to aim itself at an audience that doesn't exist... cue it bombing in every cinema as no-one honestly knows how to market something for an audience like this.

Hahahaha.

But seriously, no.

The "Superman is a weak character" fallback argument is often used by people who don't actually understand the Superman character, so I'll let you off there.

He's not a weak character, when he's written properly and understood by the writer. I'll admit there has been a lot of bad Superman, in the movies and in the comic books, but that really says a lot more about the state of the people they get to write the stuff than about the character. When Superman is done well - I'm talking about Superman For All Seasons, All-Star Superman, so on and so forth - he's one of the strongest characters in the DC universe.

Yes, his superpowers are fairly all-encompassing, and obviously they get ramped up each and every time the character is threatened to the point where Superman can reverse the flow of time or move a planet if he so wished... but at its heart, he's the Man of Steel, the immovable object and the unstoppable force rolled into one, he's a wrecking machine. If you accept that, accept he needs solar energy to use those powers, and accept his weakness to Kryptonite, at its core it's not a particularly huge deal.

What is actually more interesting about Superman is the character itself, and the stories you can tell. He's both the All-American Hero and the ultimate immigrant, both the living embodiment of the human spirit and an alien, both the saviour of planet Earth and a guy living in a foreign land trying to make a life for himself, both the guy who can defeat any foe and the guy who has trouble getting the girl... you see what I mean. The 'contradictions' as you put them are the essence of the character, those contrasts and dichotomies are what have made Superman so brilliant when he's done properly.

I think we focus, when discussing Superman, too much on the 'Superman' aspect of his character and less on 'Clark Kent,' despite the huge success of Smallville and previously Lois & Clark, which both shifted some of the focus more towards that part of him. Ultimately, Superman is 4 characters, rolled into one. You've got Kal-El, the last son of Krypton; you've got Clark Kent, the Smallville farmboy; you've got Superman, the Man of Steel; and you've got the 'mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent' which is basically his cover story (this is the reason you don't cast a Levi or something). He's trying to be all of these things, and the question of which of these aspects of his personality is the 'true' character is interesting. I happen to think the second one is the 'real' Clark Kent, Superman is just as much of an artifice as the invented, nerdy persona he puts on when he's in Metropolis, but you can have your own opinion on that and that's fine.

Ultimately, there's no actual need to make Superman 'dark' or 'edgy,' because the character actually isn't the two-dimensional, square-jawed jock hero that the people who try to make the 'dark' or 'edgy' interpretations think he is. You don't need to do that to make Superman interesting, you just have to take the essence of the character and write it properly, instead of going too far with the 'he can do ANYTHING' angle or the 'cartoon violence' stuff. What Superman says is that these characters, these extraordinary people with superpowers and fantastic lives, are ultimately people. Clark Kent could've taken over the world the moment he found out about all these powers, but instead he chooses to help people and do the right thing. That says something very profound about the human spirit, when it's at its best, and if that's 'cheesy' or whatever then fine. This is a character who has a troubled history, huge power, a hugely complicated life and destiny, and has to live a lie (or several lies) every day to make a life for himself... he has all of this baggage, and he's still a fundamentally good person at his core, he comes through all of that at makes the right choices. To say that overcoming personal strife and adversity to come out and do the right thing is somehow 'not relevant' to the modern world is beyond stupid.

Give me a good lead (Grifter is right, you find a square-jawed hero and have him play down to be the geeky reporter, so no Levi), a good director, and a writer who understands the character and isn't trying to fuck around with the essentials, and I'll be happy.

[Josh]

I'll preface this by saying I've never been a dedicated Superman follower:

What about Jon Hamm?