Christopher Nolan On Board to Direct DARK KNIGHT Sequel and “Godfather” the SUPERMAN Franchise

by Brendan Bettinger    Posted:February 9th, 2010 at 9:48 am

Christopher Nolan image slices.jpg

Yesterday, we reported on David Goyer leaving his showrunning duties for ABC’s FlashForward focus on his film career, which included a mention of the inevitable Batman 3. At the time, it seemed like a continuation of the logical but as-of-yet unconfirmed rumor that director Christopher Nolan and screenwriter Goyer would return to Gotham.  A new report Deadline, advances said heresay and ups the ante by about a million chips.  Not only has Nolan cracked the story of the sequel to The Dark Knight and committed to participate, but Warner Bros. has recruited the modern auteur to “godfather” the newest film in the Superman franchise.  It’s unlikely that Nolan will direct the Superman sequel, but any portion of the reins handed to the man indicates a serious effort on the studio’s part to make the best Superman while they still have the time.

For speculation on the future of two of the biggest superhero franchises on the planet, hit the break.

Christopher Nolan (1).jpgRecall that Superman sequel is in its own kind of production hell right now due to the critical and commercial underperformance (relatively speaking) of Superman Returns as well sa the ongoing legal battle for the rights for the iconic tale of Clark Kent.  Last time we checked, all story rights will return to the families of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of the Superman comics, in 2013.  Not only does this create a deadline for Warner Bros. to make a movie, but it puts into question the profitability of such a move.  After all, why should the studio spend $232 million (the budget of Superman Returns) to reboot a struggling franchise if they do not have the rights to sequels to capitalize on the theoretical success of said film?

Nolan’s involvement is surely a sign, however, that the studio has hope for the franchise.  Superman is, of course, one of the most recognizable superhero brands on the planet.  Warner Bros. values its relationship with Nolan, particularly after he delivered a billion dollar success in The Dark Knight; they bought into his mysterious (and expensive) Inception despite a premise that seems impossible to advertise, and they have let Nolan take his time in crafting a worthy follow-up to The Dark Knight, perhaps foregoing the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.

I don’t want to overstate Nolan’s control over the project; it seems very unlikely that he will direct any Metropolis-based adventures.  But if you’re Warner Bros., and you truly want to unleash a successful Superman film on the moviegoing public, this seems the best way to announce your intentions: hire the guy who created the most critically acclaimed (and most profitable) superhero movie of all time to mentor the attempt.  The sequel is now closer to fruition than before, but perhaps only marginally so.  They still need a solid script, a director who knows what to do with the material, a star who can fill every inch of the Superman’s red boots, and in all likelihood a deal for sequel rights beyond 2013 before this thing really gets going.

superman_returns_image_screenshot__2___medium_.jpgSo what exactly will the next film look like if Warner Bros. makes it in the next couple of years?  It seems that Bryan Singer and Brandon Routh of Superman Returns are out for good.  Many directors–including Tim Burton, JJ Abrams, McG, and Brett Rattner–came and went before Singer was chosen.  Clearly it’s no easy task to find the director right for such a vision, though I imagine they are searching far and wide as we speak.

Consider the influence Nolan will have in his peculiar involvement.  He is famous for bringing a gritty, realistic touch to his Batman films while shying away from a more traditional escapist approach to comic adaptations.  Warner Bros. Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov has previously mentioned interest in making the Superman franchise “edgier”.  Especially after the announcement that Spider-Man franchise will be rebooted in a “gritty, contemporary” style, confirming a sea change in Hollywood’s approach to costumed heroes, we have every reason to believe that any new Superman movie will be grounded in some form of realism.  I’m excited about any forward motion on a new Superman movie, and am even more jazzed that Nolan, who has yet to make a bad movie, is attached in any manner.  But I do wonder if a gritty Metropolis is the best approach to the infinitely wholesome character of Superman.

batman_the_dark_knight_image.jpgI approach the news of Nolan’s commitment to a Batman sequel with much less reservation.  Though The Dark Knight has the makings of a perfectly suitable end to Nolan’s Bruce Wayne saga, it also set up a potential third movie that could conclude a wonderful trilogy.  If you recall, at the end of The Dark Knight, Batman sacrificed his reputation for the good of Gotham to become an enemy of the state.  I would suggest that the theoretical third chapter would be a redemption story for Batman, as he finds some way to balance the nobility of his intentions with the moral ambiguity of his vigilantism.  It will be hard to top The Dark Knight, of course, in either the critical or commercial realm.  But I trust Nolan’s sense of integrity; if he didn’t believe he had anything more to say on the subject, I truly believe he simply wouldn’t return to the world, and let another director depict his own vision of Gotham.  For me, his participation is confirmation that a Dark Knight sequel could be terrific.

Really, for how cool all this news is, we probably aren’t much closer to seeing either Superman or Batman on the screen than we were yesterday.  Warner Bros. always wanted to make a new Superman movie, but there still isn’t a script, star, or director.  Likewise, the studio always wanted Nolan to return (and he has!), and the story is “cracked”, but the script is unwritten.  But “cool” this news undoubtedly is, and I think it serves as a great foundation upon which to bat around theories on both of these franchises which permeate pop culture so thoroughly.  I would love to hear your views in the comments below.

dark_knight_production_shot.jpg




View Comments

  • Dane
    I think in the next Batman Movie they should have Croc or Grundy. Have Micheal Clark Duncan as Croc. And have Bruckheimer do Superman
  • damarknighten
    They could've made the bat suit more better instead of the one from begins and dark knight. The suits from batman 89 and 92 were tight and they already had the penguin and catwoman why not make one with other villians in the batman series.
  • Scott.
    I say Nolan should show how the Joker inspired new crazy villains. Bring in the Black Mask and "Scarface and the Ventriloquist." Both that are crazy and kind of creepy like the Joker was. Plus it would be realistic, gang boss and insane guy with a puppet. In Batman Begins all those insane people ran out in the streets which could definitely be the Ventriloquist. I don't know how it could fit in a storyline but I'm sure Nolan could make it awesome.
  • joeKNOW187
    First things first, I always knew that Batman3 would always find its way to the theaters. B-Begins and DarkKnight were mindblowing films and I'm sure that the follow up will match the others or even blow the them out of the water. My hats off to Noylan. Genious!! I think that this Batman film should show that its been 2 or so years since the Dark Knight ending took place. The cops are on the hunt for Batman with some close calls but no success. Batman still keeps his relationship with Gordon but its on the low,kind of like in B-Begins. But heres the twist: Gothams criminals KNOW Batmans on the run, so crime has been increasing. Batman tries to control it, but with him having to watch his back with these criminals AND the police, he starts to lose his touch. And once again, Gotham begins to fade away into a very violent city and out come the new BADGUYS who attempt to turn Gotham into their new playground. Then...the city turns to Batman ONCE more to help them. And yada yada yada...BATMAN 3 is made. Lets even have Gordon discover Batmans identity. And i know that a "robin" possibility sounds horrible, but done the right way, maybe....even since Batman has been losing his touch and needs help. But if so, robin should not be the robin we know. Maybe a rogue criminal badass who decides to turn suit when his criminal buddies take stuff too far and kill his parents and attempt to kill him. But robin WILL be a badass. Screw the law, but he wants justice served at the same time. Get it? Now the news on superman...no. no. Just...no! Let that franchise die. Theres no helping it.
  • redforce44
    ok agreed with most of what you said apart from robin which nolan noes is a terrible idea, characters like robin are what brings comics like batmans down, through out the 60s the duo was seen as gay icons. robin is the worst idea ever , the best possible attempt was done in batman forever and it sucked. Nolan has said he will never do it, bit disappointed that you too wouldnt realise this
    btw batman never reveals himself to gordon so just...no there never was any reason to
  • TDK_RGV
    As long as Christopher Nolan gets the correct atmosphere for Superman vs. Batman (light vs. dark), it could be genuinely fantastic!
  • antonn
    i think the joker will make an appearance in the next movie, either a lookalike or a photo-realistic 3d version, hope so anyway.
  • supaman
    heath ledger made Dark Knight...he created the buzz Chris nolan aint allthat
  • Corin Prendiville
    Chris Nolan's movies have all been amazing, Heath Ledger was a great actor and his death did propel The Dark Knight forward, but it wasn't just that, it was also his role as Joker and the feathers it ruffled with Jack Nicholson's performance.

    Either way attaching Nolan to work with anything is going to give it a better chance because he has proven to be an amazing director. If Inception is a huge hit then he will definitely be a lasting voice in Hollywood.
  • Batman 3:
    Introduce Nightwing (not Robin) as a villian, and a second villian (maybe two face is back?) who becomes the real, real villian of the movie. But do the action with Nightwing, right? Anyways, do some kind of Braveheart thing, or something along those lines, where Batman finds someone to take his place and die, continuing the legend of Batman.

    But, they wouldn't do that... Sooo...

    Keep the Nightwingish villian idea, someone who Batman is equal to, and can fight, keep Two Face alive, and have the political sup blot. And maybe a sci fi twist where Ras al Gul is back from the dead and Bruce Wayne questions his own mortality?
  • kor
    oh my god! yes! i'm happy that nolan finally announced that he's still the one to direct the dark knight sequel! but not only that, i'm also happy that he might direct a superman movie!
  • First off, as a lifelong Supes fan with an S-shield tat on my shoulder, I eat, drink and bleed Superman. And I have to say that, despite its inherent problems, I liked the film. A lot. And I thought Routh was excellent, so I am sorry to hear that he won't be playing the role again. But regardless of who plays him, or who helms (though, Chris, I think you w3ould be an excellent choice), I'd love to be attached to that movie in any capacity. It would be a life dream for me. Does 60 films' worth of experience and a career in media qualify me for a role as unit publicist?

    Here's my chance to add that not ALL studio execs and associate producers are over-rated... LOL (see my comments on the poll).

    Nice report on what's going on. Congrats!
  • deano
    Ok Bram you have some deep issues. Do you also dress up as Superman and parade around the house in that homosexual bright blue outfit of his. Superman is the apitome of lame, his name, costume & concept itself leaves much to be desired.

    The mere image of him flying across the screen in that bright blue spandex costume with a red cape makes me cringe my teeth, it is hard for me to imagine how anyone past the age of 10 could feel such a premise. Superman was a integral part of comic heyday as he was popular with the kids as he was simple & effective concept that anyone could understand. I too liked him as a young kid.

    The fact that a movie would be release called in present day with a name like Super-man & dressed the way he is, with the powers that he has, makes me feel ashamed for the whole population collectively as I feel we must be a bunch of absolute simpletons to even slightly embrace such a simple effortless concept. Comic-book movie adaptions today are as realistic & amongst the most enjoyable action blockbuster films today due to their believabilty and realism, but Superman makes a mockery of the industry all together. I guess by producing these films they will always have the young person audience, (12 and under) & maybe deserves a place amongst such films as he Spykids franchise or finding Nemo.

    PS. Dont feel too ashamed tho, Bram, as the Superman logo is quite clean.
  • saje3d
    Smallville hasn't been doing the freak of the week crap since the second season, really. Anyone who watched the first couple seasons and decided they'd had enough missed out on how much better the writing became once Lex started his inexorable slide into evil. It has its faults but at least THAT ended. I almost gave up on the show myself but am now glad I gave it the chance to redeem itself.

    That said, I'm afraid I'm on the side of those who look at the idea of a gritty superman as unnecessary and a bit disturbing. The guy laughs off everything except bullets and magic. Where's the grit going to come from? Killing off Lois? Or millions of innocent civilians?

    Grittiness, despite Hollywood's assumptions to the contrary, isn't the end-all. The goal should be to tell a fascinating story with characters we care about, not spit in the Dark Knight's eye. A goal of "grittiness" without dedication to the mythology and the characters is celluloid masturbation and little else. Rather like the last three movies of the original series... except in the other direction.

    And that goes double for the wankers who decided a "gritty" reboot of Spider man was either necessary or desirable. Get a grip. Spider man isn't supposed to be gritty. It's supposed to be a superhero action comedy. That's the character and the mythos. Sure, there can be tragedy--and has been--but the thing about Peter is that he always manages to rise above it. Kill that and kill the character.
  • Corin Prendiville
    Sorry but this generation wants realism, which naturally is dark and gritty and painful and disturbing. Which is why Superman can't work, its like the classic '50s comic book. Cheezy as all hell, false and hides the issues of life. Sorry, but Superman is the dumbest character ever. He is a Marty Sue, he has no weaknesses (except some damn rock), he is the perfect person, has perfect morals. It is ridiculous, nobody is that perfect and you can't create any interesting or real conflict with a character like that. Which is why I think the only way for Superman to survive in this day and age is for them to bring him down to earth a little bit, give him a character flaw not just a bald super villain who wants to destroy the world for god knows what reason.
  • saje3d
    I've never been that big a superman fan for those reasons... But while it's certainly possible to create a powerful being with human flaws--gawd knows I've done it--one must also keep in mind the limitations of the character and the mythology. What flaws could you paint for him? In Smallville one of his greatest flaws was his secretiveness. Of necessity, sure, but it can alienate people. How to humanize someone who isn't in any way human? Give him human flaws? Bad hygiene? A tendency toward Super-voyeurism? He has to be connected enough to get involved, to intercede on the behalf of strangers all the time, to be a symbol of justice and goodness, yet somehow flawed enough for people to say--"Yeah, I believe that."

    On top of that, the idea that no one sees Clark Kent and Superman and says "They're the same person" because one of them wears glasses is ridiculous. They're clearly identical--of identical size, hair color, and eye color. Not to mention their voice would be identical as well.

    How to scuff up Superman in a believable way--that would be a challenge indeed.
  • Corin Prendiville
    I agree, I haven't watched a whole lot of Smallsville but he seems to have human emotions and he does screw things up and make mistakes. His secretiveness is a start, but perhaps they could turn his good intentions in on him (kind of like what they did with Batman in The Dark Knight), choosing between two goods. He can't be everywhere at once (unless I missed his cloning ability).

    Pride could be a flaw... and compassion.
  • Bram
    Good point. I guess this is the Superman I grew up with, but I was also covering Superman and other DC comics in mainstream media in 1993 when the Death of Superman hit, when he was replaced by the four characters before being brought back a year later... and it was exciting to see something new. I admit that the Return was a lot like the original series of films in that Superman was too much of a Boy Scout, but I liked the fact he was at least a bit grittier. Bottom line: I would not have a problem with a dark, gritty Metropolis and a Superman that isn't perfect. Maybe Tim Burton would be a good director for that sort of film, after all. Or JJ Abrams. I mean, the guy can reimagine anything, I believe.

    Whatever it is, I hope they at least put lots of effort and thought into it. I also hope the upcoming Green Lantern film is a kick-ass effort. It has certainly taken long enough for one of comicdom's best characters. In brightest day, in blackest night...
  • Corin Prendiville
    Yeah, its just annoying watching a walking talking cliche on film for almost 3 hours. I didn't even finish the new Superman movie because it felt that forced, but there were more problems than just Superman being his super self - it just wasn't that well done a film.
  • jonathan
    Corin, I think you have a couple of emotional issues. You sound disturbed and hateful in your post regarding some fictional comic book character called superman. You do know an entire country is in epic disaster due to an earthquake?

    If Superman was the "dumbest character ever", Superman Returns wouldnt have grossed$200MM domestic, 78% Positive RT Meter, Superman I and II wouldnt have been the success they were. You must have a personal agenda in attacking a fictional character with so much hate and passion. You do know he's not real?

    You do know that Cyclops (who is also a fictional character by way) shoots massive amounts of high energy lasers that can cut through steel, iron, and just about any metal on earth, while his eye sockets, skin around his eyes, and hair are utterly untouched? Oh and by the way, superman was written to have the same power.

    Your argument is emotion ridden and flawed.
  • Corin Prendiville
    No it is not.

    a) Cyclops has one power, sure he can shoot flares from his eyes but he can also be shot and die and has a slew of emotional issues that continuously cause his downfall in the comics (though X-Men characters constantly miraculously coming back from the dead does get old... a major flaw of the Marvel Universe).

    a2) Superman on the other hand has that as one power. He can also fly, deflect bullets off of his man-chest, punch someone into oblivion, doesn't ever seem to do anything wrong but instead is thrown into situations that he ultimately fixes. This may not be the case with ALL superman comics, but the popularization of him and the films especially the originals all emphasized this Superman which is something I think needs to be strayed away from. Also $200 million is not an achievement in the world of comic book films, especially when you consider the movie cost $270 million to make and only made $390 worldwide so it hardly made a profit. 78% is not a bad rating (though not as good as any other comic book film to come out this decade)- and it is the most beloved comic book hero in American history, and yet Iron Man still managed to do way more business and get a 93% rating on rotten tomatoes without the prestige of Superman).

    b) The dumbest character ever is an expression of my personal feelings towards the popular Superman. I'm sorry, but I don't see how a man who is essentially perfect can be interesting unless your the kind of person who likes to imagine the world is a perfect place and fantasize about being perfect. If you knew anything about writing you would know that literary conflict is almost entirely created through internal struggle, which is impossible if a character has no flaws or always know the best options. Which only leaves external struggle, and external struggle isn't good for much outside some amusing action and adventure (hence its a kiddie character), something adults can hardly take seriously which is why the movie didn't perform well because kids don't read Superman like they used to instead they watch Avatar The Last Airbender, Pokemon, etc. The only reason it did as well as it did was because all the nostalgic adults who used to read the books as kids.

    c) Superman I and II were created in a different time, a time I said people could buy the unrealistic crap. Not to mention they were the closest things anyone had to big budget blockbuster action flicks at the time, which explains the success. You couldn't release something like Superman I and expect it to be successful now like it was then.

    d) What does the Haitian Earthquake have anything to do with a discussion about Superman? Are you in some way implying that by my taking an interest in the direction a film takes that I must not be focusing enough on helping my fellow man?

    By the way, I am in no way saying Superman is just a dead superhero (though in his current incarnation he is slightly outdated), I am simply saying he needs a rebirth. I don't think they should make Superman as dark as Batman is because Batman has always been a darker and more disturbed Superhero, almost an original anti-hero. Superman should follow more down the path of Spiderman or hopefully the Green Lantern film.
  • G - DOPE
    Nolan adapts to the material. He did do a movie that has to do with the Fantastical. The end of the Prestige where Hugh Jackman's magician was cloning himself. I think Nolan will understand that. Superman I and II are the Superman movies obviously. Even if they are a little corny they still are the blueprint on how to make a solid Superman film that explores the actual character of the superhero while at the same time having that spectacle. That being said None of the previous superman movies have never been true to the comics any sort of way besides the basic premise. In Superman II he fights Aliens but Zod and his crew were made up for the movie. They weren't original comic book villians. They're has been a lot of great Superman stories in the Comics. Especially recently. I think Nolan will have DC focus on these tales to come up with a solid Superman story. Just like he used Batman Year One, Long Halloween, The Killing Joke, and early Bob Kane Batman for influence on Batman Begins and Dark Knight. It would be interesting to see a Superman movie that was actually true to Comic books. Kind of like the Animated Series was back in the nineties.
  • deano
    Great news about Batman really. superman is no good let it die, he is a kids comic book hero at best, the boring invincible hero called Superman should be laid to rest. He is a primitive comic hero & concept that has over run its originality & hey-day & simply put is out-dated.

    He will not be as successful as realistic comic heros such as Batman, because simply audiences cannot identify with him. The mere notion of Superman threatens to make a mockery of the whole Comic book-movie adaptions, some of which have great relevency in present time cinema due to their realistic themes and attitudes which many can relate to, however Superman has no place amongst them.
  • Corin Prendiville
    The problem with Superman is he looks like a big flaming fag (no offense to homosexuals), Batman just looks like a BDSM participator. More importantly Superman villains suck.. big time. Whereas Batman's villains are actually interesting and very dark and disturbing. It also helps that we can't see Batmans dorky outfit in the night whereas Supermans tights are out in the air for all to see.

    In an age of film where realism is everything, Superman doesn't quite make the cut. That to me is why he is failing, and why movies like Ironman, Spiderman and X-Men are successful. They have a realism to them that Superman in his little outfit, and with his perfect existence can't come close to. Unless they knock him down a notch they are screwed.

    Smallsville did just that of course, it put him in a teen body without the lame costume and with human emotions and issues.
  • nerdvana555
    This is incredible news!!! I love Nolan and couldn't be happier. I expected him to return for Batman 3, though changing is original vision slightly since the death of Heath Ledger who was most likely going to be in the third installment. I hope Batman 3 has The Riddler, I would love to see Nolan's take on the character, maybe played by Johnny Depp.
    As a huge fanboy I really liked Singer's take on X-Men, but despised Superman Returns. I would love it if Nolan would do the honor of directing a Superman origins story. I believe his attention to detail would work really well in the Superman universe. Although I will still be happy if he chooses to only produce.
  • maziarlahooti
    The greatest superman story never told is the novel by Tom DeHaven titled : It's superman. It boggles my mind that hollywood has not jumped on making this film yet. It is by far the best superman story ever. Completely grounded in realism, set in depression era united states, on the brink of world war two with a confused Clark Kent travelling the country side trying to figure out exactly who he is and ending up in New York City (Metropolis does not exist in this version)

    I mean why has no film maker considered the significance of the fact that Superman is a depression era icon. That means something. Superman won't work in present day. He's boring in present day.

    I think a new realistic approach to superman is exactly the right way to go.
  • pjcampbell
    I am thoroughly excited by the news that Nolan is returning for the next Batman flick. I still think it would be interesting to have The Riddler as a guy who is kinda like the Zodiac killer, sending out Zodiac style letters to the Gotham Newspapers while trying to gain power over the city. Cast David Tennant in the role because he has the right look and acting chops to pull over a darker, edgier version of The Riddler
  • Guest
    AWESOME!! Chris Nolan for Superman and Batman! my dreams have come true! We won't see the Superman movie for a while though, if Nolan is presumably working on it. I'd rather him continue with a lot more Batmans though, he does an absolute great job!
  • billymatt
    Nolan should seek the counsel of Richard Donner. If they put their heads together on
    Superman, we'd have one hell of movie.
  • Dawnell_do
    I just nut in my pants.
  • Shawn
    It's great to hear news of a Batman: The Dark Knight Sequel! I love Nolan's realistic style of superhero storytelling...you can actually believe a person like Batman could exist. I hope for the sequel they have an awesome Catwoman. Her conflicted personality would work well...is she good or evil?

    As for the next Superman, I though Singer and Routh did a great job. The problem was that this reboot should have been planned as a trilogy....the first film being followed by two and three, each year, as Harry Potter. We needed to be re-introduced to Superman, which Singer's movie accomplished. We just needed to get to other villians like Doomsday sooner to keep the viewers' interest. If Singer's out, then I hope they bring back Routh.

    And for both films, Warner should take Marvel's lead and have character cameos for a future Justice League movie.
  • [A]
    Just thought of it: can't they make the new Supes movie a cheap one? Cheap, as in the Spidey reboot: $80mil..
  • That's a very good question, and an apt comparison.

    I think the star/director choice will indicate budget size when (if?) we eventually get there.
  • [A]
    ..not before 2012, I'm sure
  • [A]
    Nolan should start his own directing school.. and his brother, a scripting school!
  • helveticaconspiracy
    Best news in a long time! As a side note, I have been reading movie news sites for many years. I tend to hate visiting most sides; as I want the updates, but find the writers to be obnoxious. But, Collider has recently come to my attention and you're a breath of fresh air. Intelligent, balanced movie journalism! My favorite site. Sorry to go off topic, but wanted to share that. Thanks!
  • I don't write enough of the articles to speak on behalf the site, but on behalf of me, thanks! I'm proud to write what little I do for your favorite site.
  • Christopher_M
    Brendan,

    nothing in Deadline's article confirms you're claim that Nolan will direct the third Batman movie...don't assume until it's official..he's only contributing to the script...don't mislead readers with you're headline...at least put a question mark at the end of it...
  • You're absolutely right: I did rather carelessly jump to conclusions in the headline, regardless of whether the assumption is valid or not.

    If we find out that he's not directing, but only helping with the screenplay, I promise to eat all sorts of crow.
  • Christopher_M
    no worries..I just got very stoked when I saw the headline then disappointed when it wasn't confirmed...I'm sure it's happening in the long run...Nolan understands he'll have total creative freedom plus massive budgets for his original projects at WB if he does one more movie...
blog comments powered by Disqus
  • Follow Steve on Twitter
  • Follow Matt on Twitter



Click Here