E-mail debate: Super-Nolan

Last week, it was announced that Christopher Nolan, director/writer/visionary behind "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight," will shepherd DC/WB's Superman reboot. Kaleb Havens and Cory Barker discuss this move in this week's e-mail debate.

Go to Google right now. Type in “Superman sales figures.” Go on, I’ll wait. Did you do it? Now look above the first search result. Google seems to think you meant something else, offering perhaps “Spiderman sales figures.” How did this happen to such an iconic character, a franchise that once dominated the comic book medium, now taking a back seat to more popular franchises?

Dud. Movies.

We all love Christopher Reeve’s Superman in the 70’s, but III and IV where box office and critical failures, and Brian Singer’s attempted 2006 reboot didn’t perform leaps and bounds better despite Kevin Spacey’s best efforts. On the other hand, Spiderman, X-Men, Iron Man, and of course Superman’s relative DC franchise, Batman, all have blockbuster movie franchises.

Warner Brothers' solution? Put your best horse in the race. Or, at least let them teach your other horses how to run. We hear from Deadline: Hollywood that Christopher Nolan, mastermind behind the 2006 Batman reboot "Batman Begins" and its 2008 sequel, the staggeringly successful "The Dark Knight," is being brought in to inject some of the same cinematic sensibility into DC’s other franchise.

The question, then, is whether or not Nolan can marshal a project that tells a compelling story with a character who, by his very nature, is less relatable than Batman. Sure, Clark Kent has never had to ask anyone’s help when moving, he’s never late for anything (unless aliens are trying to destroy the world again), and he’s only in real danger when the bad guys get their hands on those little green rocks. But the guy feels too.

I think anyone who gets a taste of power, no matter how noble their intentions, will be tempted to use that power for all sorts of things, and it’s not always easy to know what’s in everyone’s best interest. With this in mind, the Superman mythos is still as fertile a ground for story telling as he has been for the last century; check out graphic novels like "Red Sun," a story that explores what would’ve happened if baby Supes had crash landed in the Soviet Union. And of course, there’s Frank Miller’s treatment of Superman as antagonist to Batman in "The Dark Knight Returns." Wanting to do the right thing is not the same as being able to or knowing what the right thing is, even with all the powers of Superman.

I have faith in Chris Nolan’s ability to guide a compelling story for the Man of Steel, no matter how many film makers have tripped over the legacy in the past. Lest we forget, Batman had his dark days too.

–Kaleb Havens

I would never suggest that Superman didn’t need a reboot in the film department, because it does. I watched ‘Superman Returns’ on opening day for god’s sake. Yuck. I don’t blame Brandon Routh or Kevin Spacey or even the tepid Kate Bosworth. I blame Bryan Singer.

I would also never suggest that a good Superman film couldn’t be made, because there’s certainly a slew of material to play with from the comic canon.

AND finally, I would never suggest that Nolan couldn’t help drive a new Supes project. Because he’s the man.

My problem with all of this is my fears of where it could go. Right after “TDK” went wild at the box office, DC and WB said they wanted all their film properties to go the darker, more realistic route. For someone who knows a pretty good amount about Superman, that’s the wrong way to go. DC/WB can get wrapped up in the grittiness of “TDK” and Nolan’s “grounded” approach, but it won’t quite work for Supes -- I don’t think.

For all his generic faults, Superman still represents three things: Truth, Justice and the American way. Sure, that’s a little hokey, but it’s also who Supes/CK is. He’s an alien who found is humanity because he was raised in the Midwest and raised to be a good, helpful American. That is the story.

And it’s a story that’s not realistic, or at least not as realistic as Nolan’s Bat-verse. And that’s okay. You can’t explain Superman’s flight or X-Ray vision in some realistic way, even as much as Rami did in the “Spider-Man” flicks.

It doesn’t need to be pure fantasy, but most of Supes’ villains are not of terrestrial descent or at least have special abilities that can’t quite be explained in reality. By bringing on Nolan, I’m afraid he’ll want to go dark, he’ll want to use Lex again -- and even if they make him a more realistic man instead of the joke that Hackman/Spacey played him as -- he won’t touch Michael Rosenbaum’s portrayal of him on “Smallville.” Lex has been done enough.

You mentioned the mythos being fertile ground, and I agree. I’ve read “Red Sun,” I’ve read “Dark Knight Returns.” But I think the best way to go, and this solves the Nolan problem as well, is to just bring in Geoff Johns.

His Brainiac and “Superman: New Krypton” story arcs were well-regarded, featured other villains aside from just Lex and doesn’t require a full reboot or origin story. And that’s the number one thing to avoid here: another origin story. Of all the superheroes in the world, Superman’s origin is the most well-known. People know he’s an alien. People know he has two identities. I’m just worried Nolan will go that route, too.

Again, I know that Nolan isn’t writing or even directing this thing, but just guiding. But that has a wide interpretation. He’ll come up with the story for a few films, bring on a writer he trusts, etc. It’s still going to be propelled by a guy that wants to explore psyches, create misdirections and environments of paranoia. Most of that doesn’t sound like Superman to me.

–Cory Barker

As Nolan has voiced before, films are media artifacts in their own right; even when telling stories about characters who happen to have appeared in comics, the film has to be its own invention with its own rules. Those rules dealt with questions of good and evil in "TDK," and as a result of careful writing the cast operated with a psychological density unlike many of their comic book counterparts.

Realism, naturalism, social realism; these terms are thrown around a lot when talking about modern film making, and at first glance they can be taken as synonyms with dark, gritty and depraved characterization.

But saying a story is layered doesn’t always have to mean layers of mud. Superman is the great American hero, an icon. Icons make great statues, but when asked to carry the weight of a 2-hour film they often come across as insipid and even boring.

Our protagonists need to have flaws not just to be relatable, but to be compelling. When you think back to some of the greatest movies of all time, their ensembles look more like rogues galleries.

"Citizen Kane" had a hand in every piece of dirty business in his city; Micheal Corleone did what he had to for his family in "The Godfather," but at the cost of friends and even family; even Rick Blaine in "Casablanca" doesn’t want to stand up against Nazis except to impress a girl.

The only character who comes close might be Ben Kingsley’s "Gandhi," which may be viable input for a treatment of Superman as a real hero. But again, Gandhi is a film with immense political and social realism, presenting all forms of racism that pervaded India. Real heroes need to solve real problems, and that’s why the telling of their stories is so difficult.

I’m not saying Superman should picket outside Washington against the WTO or take sides on abortion. But wouldn’t he be tempted to stop our needless violence against one another? I

sn’t that why Jor-El sent him, because “They can be a good people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show them the way.” And speaking of Dad issues, how about growing up with Marlon Brando on a giant computer screen spouting quips like that at you? Wouldn’t you feel pressure to effect change on this planet? Dad seems to think it’s all up to you.

I just want to get to know Superman; why he’s doing these things, what drives him? Batman doesn’t have any powers, so he can’t be tempted in the same ways. There are so many interesting stories here. I just hope we get one of them.

–Kaleb Havens

My thing is this: why does it have to be Nolan that makes us “know” Superman?

Look, I know that he’ll do a solid job with this, but I don’t want it to be too dark or too “realistic” in the way that “TDK” was. But I think perhaps more than it could alter a Superman movie series, it would also set a weird precedent inside the WB/DC HQ: that only Chris Nolan knows how to make superhero movies.

And really, he doesn’t. In fact, he took most of the “superhero” stuff out of the Batman-reboot, and that worked for the character. But will it work for Superman? Would it work for the Flash? Would it work for a Justice League flick?

I don’t know think so. Again, not that he would do a bad job on one film or even two outside the Batman universe he’s created, but for me it sets up something that I don’t want to see: a monopoly on ideas. He might be one of the best, but each DC comic book character deserves its own film, its own vision, etc.

Nolan should stick to the Batman universe for now. Let someone with real comic book chops like Geoff Johns take the reigns on Superman. That way, we’ll have two franchises plugging alone at their creative heights WITHOUT one person trying to serve two masters and ultimately being stretched too thin.

–Cory Barker