Bryan Singer on 'X-Men' return: 'I've been talking to Fox about it'

Over the weekend, the AP had a short story from Busan, South Korea, where filmmaker Bryan Singer made it sound it like his return to the "X-Men" franchise may be more than just a rumor. Here's an exceprt, links added by me: 

"I'm still looking to possibly returning to the 'X-Men' franchise. I've been talking to Fox about it," Singer said at a talk at South Korea's Pusan International Film Festival.

"I love Hugh Jackman. I love the cast," he said, referring to the Australian actor who plays Wolverine.

Singer said he enjoyed making science fiction and fantasy movies because they allowed him to discuss serious issues through entertainment. He said the "X-Men" series, which follows a group of mutants with superpowers who struggle to fit in with humans, is about tolerance and social structures.

He said he likes to "trick audiences into thinking they're seeing fireworks, but they're learning about themselves and listening to what I have to say."

Singer directed the first two X-films with deft success but then left the franchise for a somewhat disappointing trip to Metropolis. Would the Marvel mutants fare better with his return? Check out our in-depth look at the future of the franchise, which answers that very question. 

-- Geoff Boucher

RECENT AND RELATED

Hugh Jackman says there's a lot of Mike Tyson in Wolverine

READER POLL: "X-Men" and "Spider-Man" franchises should just stop

X-Men franchise must mutate to thrive again

Women love "Wolverine" -- or is it just Hugh Jackman? 

Wolverine, by the numbers

LAT review: "Wolverine" isn't "Dark Knight," but it isn't "Daredevil" either

VIDEO: Meet the characters of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"

Mutant museum: Wolvie in the style of Picasso & Warhol

Photo: Bryan Singer at "Valkyrie" premiere. Credit: Associated Press

READER POLL: 'The Hobbit' will triumph but 'X-Men' and 'Pirates' franchises should quit now

FOUR FRANCHISES AT A CROSSROADS

 

Talk about heroic: Four film franchises, one decade, more than $10 billion worth of theater tickets sold.

And more than that, in their very best moments, each of these franchises shown above delivered sparkling adventure and escapism for moviegoers. Now, though, with the decade winding down and all four franchises sitting a nice tidy trilogy, the question must be asked: Isn't three the magic number? Do we really need a fourth movie from any of these aging popcorn enterprises? Clearly, all of them will be written up in the Hollywood history books but right now the indelicate must be asked: "How can we miss you if you won't leave?"

Last week we gave you an in-depth report on this quartet of mega-franchises and their quests for a fourth visit to theaters. We told you how "The Hobbit" must escape the the towering shadow of "The Lord of the Rings," while Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" series needs to get back to its roots to thrive. We also explained that the "X-Men" future looks especially uncertain while the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise might be facing a one-man mutiny with Johnny Depp's distress over recent changes at Disney.

We also put the question to you: Which of these franchises is making a mistake by adding a fourth film?

You made it clear that "The Hobbit," with director Guillermo del Toro taking over with a new vision, is in a class by itself -- the other franchises may tack on new editions to cash in, but fans are expecting nothing but magic from Del Toro's arrival in Middle-earth. The remaining three franchises got a frostier reception. For five days last week, more than half of our reader voters named "Pirates" as the cinematic series that should walk the plank. Over the weekend that changed and (with a lot of late-arriving Depp fans?) the surging "X-Men" became the top choice as a franchise hitting bottom.

It's not too late, though, we'll take votes for the next 48 hours before declaring our, uh, winning loser. In the meantime, thanks for reading, commenting and voting.

-- Geoff Boucher

  

VOTE: WHICH FRANCHISE IS MAKING A MISTAKE WITH A FOURTH FILM?

   

RECENT AND RELATED

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man regrets: "I would have done everything differently"

Surprised author Tim Powers finds himself aboard "Pirates" ship

Depp: "There's a crack in my enthusiasm" for "Pirates" 4

Peter Jackson: Movie fans are "fed up with the lack of original ideas"

"The Hobbit" is just the beginning of the del Toro Decade

Daniel Radcliffe as Bilbo Baggins? "Potter" stars says thanks but no

Hugh Jackman says there's a lot of Mike Tyson in Wolverine

Photos at top, from left, Ian McKellen in "Lord of the Rings," Tobey Maguire in "Spider-Man," Halle Berry in "X-Men: The Last Stand" and Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean."  Credits from left: New Line Cinema, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Studios. Bottom photo of Sam Raimi by Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times

'X-Men' film franchise must mutate to be heroic again

FOUR FRANCHISES AT A CROSSROADS: PART THREE

This week we're taking a look at four major trilogies from this decade that are looking to add a fourth film despite substantial challenges -- not least among those challenges the skepticism of moviegoers who may wonder whether some of these Hollywood vehicles are running on empty. You can find the other three installments of the series right here.

"X-Men"

The story so far: With the triumph of comic-book properties in Hollywood today, it's easy to forget how startling Bryan Singer's "X-Men" was when it arrived in 2000. Sleek, sophisticated and respectful of its studied source material, the Fox film ran counter to the then-standard Hollywood approach of turning comic-book adaptations into smirking cartoons that insulted loyal fans of the properties. The $75-million film made $296 million in worldwide box office (it finished as the eighth-highest-grossing film in America that year) and later won over a vast audience that saw it on home video, cable or pay-per-view. The sequel "X2: X-Men United" arrived as one of the most anticipated releases of 2003 and finished with $408 million worldwide and better reviews than the first one. Singer left the franchise to take on the oddly airless "Superman Returns," so Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour") was brought in for the third movie, "X-Men: The Last Stand," which rolled up $459 million at the box office but suffered some withering reviews.

The challenge: When the credits rolled on "The Last Stand," most observers assumed the franchise (like a good number of the main characters) was dead and waiting to be buried. The fact that the franchise's central hero, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), was spun off into a lone-wolf film this year suggested that the Marvel mutant team might be akin to aging band that just watched its lead singer launch a solo tour. But last month, producer Lauren Shuler Donner, a key figure in the franchise from Day 1, said that a fourth X-Men film remains viable and, more than that, there are efforts moving toward that goal, although they are in very early stages. That may be true, but there have been plenty of mixed signals when it comes to Fox and potential mutant movies; more than a half-dozen different projects have been trumpeted at one time or another, among them a Magneto film, a Deadpool movie, a Gambit project, a New Mutants spin-off and a Wolverine sequel. It's maddening to try keep track of what is (and isn't) happening.

The status: Amid all the noise, the most interesting tidbit in recent months was the August report in Variety that Singer was flirting with the idea of directing "X-Men: First Class," which would be a prequel based on the popular comic book series and the draft script by “The O.C.” creator Josh Schwartz. Later, Donner publicly stated that "First Class" is not the likely next film, but the linkage of Singer to any Marvel mutant is big news -- and may signal an effort to have him back in X-business. Donner has made a point of saying in interviews that having Singer back would be a welcome idea, and why not? The director's departure from the X-franchise didn't burn any bridges. Plus, Donner's husband, "Superman" director Richard Donner, was an engaged mentor for Singer as the younger filmmaker toiled on a version of the Man of Steel that was a valentine to the Donner interpretation. Singer's slate of upcoming projects looks dense, but Fox wants to keep the "X-Men" properties front and center, clearly. The studio's rights will revert back to Marvel in 2012 if there is no project in active development. I know Donner is looking at the wide mythology of the entire "X-Men" universe and there is plenty there, of course, but if they go with a "First Class" prequel, they may have a tough time shoehorning Jackman and his signature character into the film continuity. A reunion sequel may be the safer way to go, but that would require reuniting the scattered big-name cast (which would be difficult) and coming up with a deft way to bring back the dead characters (less challenging, if the old comics are any indication).  

The prediction: Back in 2000, I remember telling one of the top film-coverage editors at the Los Angeles Times that there was huge potential audience for "X-Men," and he scoffed. "Well, 'Mystery Men' tanked," he said. "Why should this be different?" "X-Men" was a pivot point in superhero cinema and, with the intensity of its opening concentration-camp scene, it gave a ready generation of filmgoers the heroes they wanted, not the bloated old-school farce of "Batman & Robin," which was a mere three years earlier. With all that context, watching "The Last Stand" was torture. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" was better but still not on the level of the Singer films. Despite the upbeat chatter on both sides, I'm skeptical that Singer will actually return to the franchise -- when decision time comes, there will have to be a truly marvelous script to get the "Usual Suspects" director to circle back to ground he's covered before, especially considering that the landscape is charred and pitted after Ratner's noisy residence. No, I predict we instead see more spinoffs of Singer's outsider tale. And (judging by recent history) the directors entrusted with those mutant ventures might deliver video-game plots, flimsy characters and some killer explosions.

-- Geoff Boucher

 
Four major franchises look to make a fourth film, but should they?

VOTE: WHICH FRANCHISE IS MAKING A MISTAKE WITH A FOURTH FILM?

RECENT AND RELATED

Hugh Jackman says there's a lot of Mike Tyson in Wolverine

Women love "Wolverine" -- or is it just Hugh Jackman? 

Wolverine, by the numbers

LAT review: "Wolverine" isn't "Dark Knight" but it isn't "Daredevil" either

VIDEO: Meet the characters of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"

Mutant museum: Wolvie in the style of Picasso & Warhol

Is X-Men "First Class" headed to the screen?

 

Four major franchises look to make a fourth film -- but should they? [Updated]

They are four of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history and each is at a major crossroads. This week the Hero Complex will look at "The Lord of the Rings," "Spider-Man," "X-Men" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" and size up their future as they attempt to move past their original trilogies and into a new decade.

Tuesday "Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit": How can Guillermo del Toro possibly match up to Peter Jackson's magical conquests ($2.92 billion in global box office and 17 Oscars including best picture, best director and best adapted screenplay)? At least he has Jackson on his side ...

Wednesday "Spider-Man": Director Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are back for more and that's no surprise considering "Spider-Man 3" had the highest-grossing opening weekend of the wall-crawling films -- and went on to make $891 million worldwide. Still, the last film got decidedly mixed reviews, and some fans are wondering if the magic is gone.

Thursday: "X-Men": The summer 2000 release of Bryan Singer's "X-Men" truly signaled the beginning of the modern era of superhero cinema and its new ambitions. While the 2006 release of "X-Men: The Last Stand" led to commercial success ($459 million), the hero-snuffing plot, the finality of the title and those cruel reviews all suggested the run was over. Now, though, producers are looking for a return to the mutant chronicles...

Friday "Pirates of the Caribbean" : The fourth film, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," hits theaters in 2011, but after a shake-up at the top of Walt Disney Studios, star Johnny Depp said he is feeling glum about the project. If he's not excited, should you be?

Check back to read them all, but in the meantime, give us your opinion: Which franchise would be making the biggest mistake by continuing past the original trilogy? Vote below ...

-- Geoff Boucher

Photos from left, Ian McKellen in "Lord of the Rings," Tobey Maguire in "Spider-Man," Halle Berry in "X-Men: The Last Stand" and Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean."  Credits from left: New Line Cinema, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Studios.

UPDATED: Previous version of this post had an incorrect year of release on one of the X-films.

Bryan Singer on 'Logan's Run' remake: 'I have decisions to make.'

      

Remember when Bryan Singer ("The X-Men," "Usual Suspects") was all set to remake "Logan's Run"? Well, Chris Lee, a feature writer at the Los Angeles Times and frequent Hero Complex contributor, was chatting with Singer for a story on the history of the Sundance Film Festival, and the tangential topic of "Logan's" came up. And, well, it doesn't sound like the remake is going to survive through Carousel anytime soon.

"At the moment, I haven’t decided. I really don’t know," Singer told Lee. "I’m taking a genuine break. The last four years have been really busy with the miniseries, the TV and the movies. I’m taking a few months to collect myself and figure out what I’m going to do in that regard. We did a lot of development on that movie and a lot of work. To start it up again, I wouldn’t start it up again without a full commitment. So I have decisions to make. Right now, that’s just hanging around."

Remember the original film? If you haven't seen it, think disco-toga utopia gone wrong...

Dated? Most certainly, but the plot has plenty to work with and a remake could also lean toward more toward the source material, the 1967 novel. I called producer Joel Silver's office and while there was no definitive answer on the status of the movie, nothing I heard from his people suggested that the movie was ramping up. Silver at one point had announced that director Joseph Kosinski was taking over the project, but that plan fizzled and now Kosinski, a hot-shot from the television commercials field, is on the "Tron" remake instead. Worse, the Michael Bay film "The Island" in 2005 copped plenty of "Logan's" mojo with its plot of a controlled, futuristic paradise with beautiful but oblivious young people being fed lies about their true fate.

All things considered, if this remake had a palm crystal, it would be flashing red right now.

-- Geoff Boucher

RECENT AND RELATED

The lowdown: 13 classic sci-fi films now being remade

Is "Terminator Salvation" this year's "Iron Man"?

An R2-D2 fish tank? The ultimate fanboy gift guide

The future of "Star Trek," "Star Wars" and "Battlestar"

Exclusive: William Shatner vents about the new "Trek" film

Exclusive: Tim Burton explains his take on "Alice in Wonderland"

CREDIT: "Logan's Run" publicity still from the Los Angeles Times archives.

The Superman problem: Can he still fly in the 21st century?

Thirty years ago, the Man of Steel was flying high at theaters. But will he ever get off the ground again?

Richard Donner's "Superman," released in December 1978, was a box-office triumph and critics were, for the most part, cheering right along with the fans. Roger Ebert called the film "a pure delight," while the late Jack Kroll wrote in Newsweek that Donner had pulled off "a major feat in filmmaking."

It was by nature a sunny film, sentimental and playful, never embarrassed while soaring with its John Williams score and (literally) with its special effects. But show it to a teenager today and he or she will snicker and roll their eyes. These are kids who have sat in dark theaters with Wolverine, Hellboy and Heath Ledger's Joker. If they're holding out for a hero, you can bet he's not going to be plucking kittens out of trees, reciting patriotic mottos and chasing down bumbling bad guys named Otis.

This brings us to the Superman problem. Warner Bros. just pulled in half a billion dollars in the U.S. alone with the relentless nihilism of "The Dark Knight," and the other hero films of the summer ("Hancock," "Iron Man," "Hellboy 2," etc.) presented troubled protaganists who struggle as much with themselves as they do with bad guys. So, of coruse, Warner now wants Superman to tone down the Boy Scout stuff.

Lauren A.E. Schuker had a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal that quoted Warner Bros. executive Jeff Robinov (who, by the way, is apparently the man who came up with the idea of postponing the sixth "Harry Potter" film until next year) about the plans for the Man of Steel's next flight in Hollywood:

Like the recent Batman sequel — which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far — Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

We've heard this before. There was a series of Superman projects announced that had the hero dead, dying, powerless and, perhaps worst of all, portrayed by Nicolas Cage in a suit of armor. The thing is, Superman has always been a daytime hero; he's not Batman prowling the gutters of Gotham looking to exact revenge on every street punk in the world.