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.

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.

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.