WB/DC: It's All Part Of The Plan

[I Am The Knight]

It never ends.

Aye.

 

[GreenKToo]

A Nic Cage Superman movie would at least have a certain trainwreck appeal. t:

haha yeah. I wouldnt be able to divert my eyes from it.

 

[Dave_W]

Apologies if this has been posted already, it is nearly a year old. It talks about Leterrier's possible involvement with the next 'reinvention' of Superman.

There was an interview with Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier over at AlloCiné (via AICN) in which someone threw out a number of different sequels (Spider-Man, Superman, Indiana Jones), and (I think) asked if he'd be interested in directing any of them. Now, according to someone who wrote in to AICN, Leterrier stopped at Superman and said something like ... "maybe they have already asked me." We here at Cinematical have watched the video in question (you can too over here), and he definitely does look at the camera, smile and say something regarding the Superman sequel. I don't speak French, though, but it appears as if that's the correct translation.

So, has Warners already talked to Leterrier about possibly directing the next Superman movie? And is Leterrier the big-name action director Wanted's Mark Millar mentioned when he recently talked up his own Superman project? As AICN points out, Leterrier is currently working on the Clash of the Titans remake for Warners, so it seems reasonable for them to also talk to him about Superman. Is DC trying to steal a Marvel guy? Interesting development ...

What say you? Would Leterrier do a better job than Singer on Superman?

UPDATE: Leterrier contacted AICN and said the following: "What I meant was that I had been told about a possible reinvention of Superman. Not that I was offered the job." Take that as you will ...

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/07/10/was-hulk-director-offered-new-superman-gig/

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea i think that was posted long time ago when that news article went online.

 

[dark_b]

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/6/15/superman-returns-where-are-they-now.html

 

[04nbod]

I just read the new Superman Legal documents at newsarama's blog and this is said

'Mr Horn testified that, aside from his 'hopes' to develop the Superman character, at present the property is not under development at Warner Bros. No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a Superman film could be theatrically released would be 2012. As Mr Horn explains 'we had hopes to keep the [superman] character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. We are- 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 critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with superman that concern us.'

page 26 of the latest documents to come from the copyright trial. The court also tries to say that Kryptonite does not have to be crystal and therefore could get around WB's copyright.

 

[Double Down]

Well, that doesn't sound good.

 

[Lighthouse]

I just read the new Superman Legal documents at newsarama's blog and this is said


page 26 of the latest documents to come from the copyright trial. The court also tries to say that Kryptonite does not have to be crystal and therefore could get around WB's copyright.

Gotta say I'm a bit perplexed by that statement. I sure as hell didn't like the movie, but to say that it wasn't well-reviewed is just contrary to the facts.

Can you post a link?

 

[MadVillainy]

it was one of those movies that initially critics like it (I think it got like 76 on RT)
but as time went on people realized that it was a below average-poor movie.

Honestly I wouldnt mind an SR sequel, if it wasnt for the damn kid....No supervillain I can understand and it could be easily fixed

But that son of Superman aspect bugged me

 

[Double Down]

Also from the lawsuit:

Given that Mr. Horn testified that the release of a sequel to Superman Returns movie could occur in 2012, it is certainly now possible, based on the only competent evidence related to this issue introduced at trial, that filming of such a sequel could occur within the 2009 to 2011 time frame.

Unless and until it can be shown at that point in time that no filming of a sequel to Superman Returns has commenced, it cannot be said, with any degree of certainty, that the Superman film agreement’s failure to contain a reversion clause keyed to continued and regular development of the property in film has caused any harm.

In making this statement, the Court is certainly mindful of how close this market deficiency in the Superman film agreement is from shifting from speculation to concrete harm. Even under Mr. Horn's hopeful estimate, no filming of a Superman sequel will commence this year nor is it likely that it will commence next year. Without a script, and there is none at present, filming cannot be commenced. It is only the possibility that filming could begin on a Superman sequel in 2011 that has stayed the Court from making a finding on the reasonable certainty of harm having occurred.

Given that the potential for said commencement of filming exists at the present time, plaintiffs have not shown that the Superman film agreement, sans a reversion clause, is below the reasonable range for what a willing buyer would pay for the property from a willing seller. If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced on a Superman sequel, plaintiffs could bring an accounting action at that time to recoup the damages then realized for the Superman film agreement's failure to contain a reversion clause.

 

[Lighthouse]

Found the links, and it looks pretty damn conclusive.

To Blog@Newsarama
http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/07/08/latest-ruling-in-the-siegel-superman-case/

Last year a federal court awarded the Siegel heirs half of the copyright in the Superman material in Action Comics #1. Remaining to be decided, however, was how much that copyright interest was worth.

Today the court released its ruling on the first issue related to this question

And the link to the actual document.
http://uncivilsociety.org/siegel_070609.pdf

Mr. Horn testified that, aside from his “hopes” to develop the Superman character, at present the property is not under development at Warner Bros. (Trial Tr. at 166). No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a Superman film could be theatrically released would be in 2012. (Trial Tr. at 155). As Mr. Horn explained, “we had hopes to keep the [Superman] character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. We are — 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.” (Trial Tr. at 153). Thus, in the seven years since the Superman film agreement was executed a single movie has been released and no further development has occurred. How does this compare to film licensing agreements with reversion provisions keyed to continued film development?

Thats...interesting.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I guess 2012 is a longshot. I guess WB will make every play to get BB3 ready for 2012 if that's the case.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Good Lord, they just need to make a damn decision. If they want to reboot, get it the hell done. It just amazes me how they fail to know how to handle Superman.

Seriously 2011 would not be hard at all with a proper vision and team.

 

[MadVillainy]

No 2011, thats too corwded as it is. and besides they have no headway in a new Superman film yet so that date would be difficult

But I agree JcDc. I could understand if this kind of thing is happening to a Flash film, but with Superman? I dont get it...

 

[Double Down]

If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced on a Superman sequel, plaintiffs could bring an accounting action at that time to recoup the damages then realized for the Superman film agreement's failure to contain a reversion clause.

It clearly behooves Warner Bros. to start filming by 2011.

 

[Lighthouse]

It clearly behooves Warner Bros. to start filming by 2011.

I'm a little unclear on it myself. It says "If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced". Does that mean it needs to at least start filming sometime in 2010, or it needs to start filming in 2011. I'm not sure if January 1st, 2011 is the deadline or if its just anytime during 2011.

 

[stargazer]

Sigh, I will just repost this post from another thread,




This is UNBELIEVABLE, over 70 years of mythos, storylines, etc, and they still can't get their act together..... you suck big time, WB.

The world needs Superman!

We need hope, inspiration, goodness, excitement, what Superman is all about!

Just give us an action-packed Superman movie (preferably a sequel) with a good story, a compelling supervillain, the right cast (With Brandon Routh as Superman. He was awesome and inspired casting!), and promote the hell out of it with exciting trailers, and that's it!

I think Brainiac could work wonderfully. I want to see Supes fighting lots of robots, it'd be truly epic! And it'd be a lot more profitable than Superman Returns was. And I LOVE the film, btw. It's beautiful.





If things continue this way --nothing happening with Supes at the movies-- I guess I'm gonna turn into a Marvel girl. What other choice do I have?

I want to see another Superman movie as soon as possible, please! And soon. SIGH.

 

[Double Down]

I'm a little unclear on it myself. It says "If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced". Does that mean it needs to at least start filming sometime in 2010, or it needs to start filming in 2011. I'm not sure if January 1st, 2011 is the deadline or if its just anytime during 2011.

It reads as if it would be up to the Siegel heirs to pursue action if filming does not start before Jan. 1, 2011. And my guess is that if filming did not start by that date, they would be back in court.

A reversion clause typically provides that if the buyer does not produce a movie within a certain time, all rights revert back. For example, a book author may sell the rights to his book to a movie producer. But if a movie was not made within a pre-approved time frame -- say, five years -- the rights would go back to the author.
In this case, it would seem that the "plaintiffs" would be able to recoup lost revenue from a movie not being made, since there is no reversion clause in the deal between Warner Bros. and DC.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

If things continue this way --nothing happening with Supes at the movies-- I guess I'm gonna turn into a Marvel girl. What other choice do I have?

I agree that Superman needs to come along and end this out of hand "Reign of the Bat", but what are you, a fair-weather Superman fan.

 

[stargazer]

I agree that Superman needs to come along and end this out of hand "Reign of the Bat", but what are you, a fair-weather Superman fan.

No, no, no, I was just exagerating with that. Superman ALWAYS HAS BEEN and ALWAYS WIL BE my favorite. By far.

BUT, I like superhero movies, and with so many Marvel movies coming out, and NO new Superman movie coming out any time soon... I dunno, I feel like WB should try harder. Don't they want the DC heroes to shine as well?? If they continue having the DC heroes' movies on develomental hell, maybe some people will just forget about them and fall in love with the Marvel ones...

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The fact that the character of Superman can cause this much controversy reminds me how much influence he'll always have. Most every superhero you read today owes his or her existence to him. Decades and decades after his creation, and he still is able to incite such strong emotions in so many people worldwide, all while being a fictitious character. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter if he gets a new blockbuster today, tomorrow, or in 50 years. He'll always remain the most important superhero. It's set in stone. Not even the immaturity of big name producers can come close to changing that.

 

[bullets]

Alot of DC heroes are due for a treatment. I can't believe there is no sucessful Superman franchise going at the moment.

 

[Double Down]

Here is Variety's take:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005806.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=bd_film

 

[04nbod]

I can find nothing in the documents that suggest development has passed anything but a desire on WB's part. I think the 2012 date is if scripting was begun straight away which we know will not happen. I don't think a reboot has been persued at all beyond preliminary discussions.The court spends a lot of time pondering a 'reversion clause' such as marvel implimented. It takes into account the fact the movie has not been shopped elsewhere and uses X Men as the marker for Superman's potential. It shines a great light on Marvel movie contracts as well.

remember though, the heirs own half a character that is almost unrecognisable from the one we have today. Even if they do get Clark and Lois they have no villains, no weaknesses, no daily planet, no supporting cast, no Kara, no Connor...everything that superman has become in 70 years would be stripped away.

 

[GreenKToo]

This is interesting.

Mr. Horn testified that, aside from his “hopes” to develop the Superman character, at present the property is not under development at Warner Bros. (Trial Tr. at 166). No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a Superman film could be theatrically released would be in 2012. (Trial Tr. at 155). As Mr. Horn explained, “we had hopes to keep the [Superman] character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. We are — 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.” (Trial Tr. at 153). Thus, in the seven years since the Superman film agreement was executed a single movie has been released and no further development has occurred. How does this compare to film licensing agreements with reversion provisions keyed to continued film development?


so is this.

The Court pointedly ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start production on another Superman film by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages