Great Scott, Marty! We’ve got to get back to 1945!
It’s not a dream, not a hoax, and sadly just one more bit of not-so-great news to give you today — Sgt. Rock is getting a movie. Only problem? The World War II legend will be transplanted to the future. In other news, this is why we can’t have nice things.
Here’s a highlight (can I call this a highlight? A lowlight?) from the Hollywood Reporter:
Until now, “Rock” has retained its World War II setting, with Silver and the studio trying to make a big-budget action adventure movie that was a throwback to flicks like “The Dirty Dozen,” which feature acts of American derring-do.
But a big budget always was an obstacle and, “Inglourious Basterds” notwithstanding, period war movies have not been in vogue in Hollywood for years, unless it was a more serious contemplation of the subject like “Saving Private Ryan.” Also, American jingoism went out of style after 9/11; even this summer’s G.I. Joe movie dropped the toy’s “A Real American Hero” tagline and made the action team internationally focused.
The studio hopes moving the time period to the future solves the dilemma.
Francis Lawrence, director of the remake of I am Legend, will be replacing Guy Ritchie, while Joel Silver and Akiva Goldsman will be writing the film. If you’ll excuse me for a minute, I will be hitting my head against a wall until I generate 1.21 gigawatts.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
No way this gets off the ground. No way.
I don’t think Rock has to necessarily be set in the past. He and Easy Company could work just as easily in the mid-East today.
But not the future.
Rock’s defining characteristic is his inability to admit defeat ever. That could translate to other eras. But the ‘jingoism’ line is inaccurate. I’m just beginning to read the Showcase Presents books, but the main theme of Rock’s stories is “War is hell.”
But the future? No. No way.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
That is just wrong (like Jonah Hex with zombies wrong). Besides why can’t Sgt. Rock be “a more serious contemplation of the subject?”
November 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Whaaat.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
3…
2…
1…
FAILURE!
November 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Hey, it could be great.
Pigs could also fly.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
If it’s not set in WWII, why bother with a Rock movie at all? They might as well just call it Tommy Tomorrow, Star Rovers, Star Hawkins, Space Ranger, Manhunter 2070 or freaking Space Cabbie.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I don’t care if they do this movie, I just wish they wouldn’t call it Sgt. Rock because that’s not what it’s going to be.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Hopefully by “future” it means taking Rock into his future (a.k.a. our present).
Plus, I don’t get how Hollywood won’t do anything different than what everyone is doing. Who care if other people in Hollywood are not making WWII movies? I think previous movies have proven that removing important elements from comic stories leads to bad movies.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Idi… wait for it… otic!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@Mechagamera
Sgt. Rock being used as a serious contemplation of war must still contend with the dominant paradigm of comic books as being low on the hierarchy of fiction mediums. Genre fiction still suffers this perception and comic books even more so.
One fine example of this is how Watchmen was received. The majority criticism against it was that it was a boring movie with no story. The irony is that the Watchmen movie possessed many of the qualities touted in independent films. The fact that it was a comic still went against it in regards to audience expectations. Heck, the number of movie-goers with young children attending this R-rated movie is a strong indicator of what Sgt. Rock has to face.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
NeoSamurai,
I certainly can’t argue with the truth of your statement. I would like to believe that, since Sgt. Rock is not a superhero movie, it would not automatically be treated as frivolous (not that all superhero movies should be so treated either), but I suppose that is too much to hope for.
I thought that, had lawsuits and whatnot been resolved earlier, if Watchmen could have come out four months earlier and been seen as “Oscar bait”, then most of the complaints against it would not have come up: no one would care how much money it made, boring/nothing happends–”art” movies are about how you feel, not action, and Oscar bait movies are marketed toward yuppy DINK adult couples, so the whole “kids in audience” issue would not come up.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
An idea for DC Entertainment…if you feel that you have to butcher the original concept to turn a profit, move on. DC has plenty of properties to work with, take a look.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Good point, Samurai. On the subject of Watchmen,though, isn’t Joel Silver the guy who wanted Schwarchenger as Dr. manhattan when he had the movie rights? Nice call Joel, this will be yet another addition of yours to the $5 DVD bin at wal-mart.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I knew warner bros getting more involved with dc was going to be a complete disaster.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I predict that this version of Sgt Rock will meed with all the success of Jonah Hex being transported to the future in his - - - what??? That book sucked?? It didn’t last long??
Oh, okay. This movie is gonna suck!
November 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@Mechagamera
That might’ve been a good way to surpass the stigma. However, I think the marketing of WB for Watchmen still operated under that paradigm (or at least did when they established their strategy) in regards to release date and momentum construction. WB wanted a mass market movie. Unfortunately, even at it’s most exposed for comics, Watchmen was always a niche audience.
However, if Jonah Hex proves successful, we as a comic fan audience might get truer presentations of non-superhero genre comics and talk of Space Sgt. Rock will end.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
No way will I be watching this. They tried to do this with Watchmen, having Dr. Manhattan fighting in the second Persian Gulf War. The only reason I say Watchmen was because they changed the script back to the original time period.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If WWII are not “in vogue” then why even contemplate making a Sgt Rock film? There are plenty of other Dc books that could easily be turned into successful films.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Horrible. Just…horrible.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Well, it could be worse …. they could have casted George Clooney or Brad Pitt as Sgt. Rock., or Jake G. (of Donnie Darko) or Matt Damon.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Terrible waste of time. What’s the point?
The ONLY people that will be interested in seeing a movie about Sgt. Rock are people that want to see him set in WWII….so why bother making a movie called Sgt. Rock at all?!??
Do they really think that comic fans will go out and support any piece of crap they throw out there? There are characters that are actually set in the future for petes sake!
What a backwards way of coming up with a project.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Hmm, if Marvel can make a Captain America film set during WWII, then by Jove we can have a Sgt. Rock film in WWII too! I fail to see the problem.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
What got me laughing in the article was the way they brought up the comparison of the recent G.I. Joe flick dropping the “Real American Hero” tagline.
Uhhhhmmmm…That’s not too sound of a way of making your point in an article about your film idea…comparing it to a film that was essentially a huge flopperoonie this past summer! ;D
Bottom line?
Leave it World War II, Easy Co., and (possibly) cast Bruce Willis as Sgt. Rock (that’s who I’d cast).
Keep to the spirit and heart of the source material…the comics.
It may not be a huge seller like The Dark Knight or Iron Man, but by making it something unrecognizable from the source material into something updated and out of it’s truer elements, they’re only hammering the longest nail in the coffin. May as well cast David Hasslehoff as Sgt. Rock and put it out direct to dvd.
Wake Up, D.C. Entertainment!
You’re dropping the ball with this one!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
P.S. I was kidding on casting Hasslehoff as Sgt. Rock! ;D ;D ;D
Didn’t they already do this flick under the title Starship Troopers?!? ;D
Seriously, if Inglourious Basterds can do World War II and (as another person stated above) Captain America will be set back then too, why not Sgt. Rock?
I swear, sometimes the sense in the heads of some people in Hollywood…same kind of sense as trying to ice skate on a pond during the heat of summer…NO SENSE AT ALL!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Let’s see… Halle Berry as Catwoman… Keanu Reeves as John Constantine… and now, Sgt. Rock in the future.
Yay, DC!! Way to show some respect to your fans!
Sigh.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Maybe they could try making it the WWII film that reignites the mainstream love of WWII films?
I’ve read one Sgt. Rock comic book in my entire life (so far) and even I think this is just offensive. If you’re going to completely alter the landscape that makes the character relevant, why not just make some other future-based movie without the character?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I have a 13 year old nephew who knows of Sgt. Rock from The Savage Time episodes of the Cartoon Network Justice League Cartoon and even he is floored that they are considering doing Sgt. Rock this way.
I emailed this story to my best friend who loves comics and he is insulted and horrified that the producers and Co. are considering this.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Sounds to me like we’re gonna see a box office race between Captain America and Sgt Rock for a “WW2 hero wakes up in the future” tagline. The first movie out will have the honour of saying “those other bums stole our idea!”
Other than that, I can’t imagine what possessed DCE to even consider this.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I don’t read this as the future re: Buck Rogers, but the “present” as in today or a couple of years from now. No one wants to tie Sgt Rock to the “War on Terror” hence the “sometime in the not too distant future” macguffin.
Setting Sgt Rock in such a timeframe could work - they just need to maintain the essence of the character and the tone of the book. Bruce Willis was born to play Sgt Rock - see Tears of the Sun and you’ll see what I mean (which is another great example of how you could contemporize the character.)
I’d still prefer to see him in a WW2 setting, but setting the character in a contemporary setting could still work. Just don’t dumb it down to GI Joe proportions.
Still, just remember that Arnie was set to play the character back in the eighties (The first half of Predator is an excellent example of a contemporary Sgt Rock Film by the way) and here we are twenty years later still waiting.
I’m not holding my breath.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:15 am
To think I got excited about the formation of DC Entertainment. Who thought this was a good idea? It’s so ridiculous. Might as well make a Superman movie where he’s a wizard, and Batman as a swamp monster.
Or better yet how about a Green Lantern movie with Jack Black or a Catwoman movie where she gets powers from Ancient Egpyt, oh wait……
With any luck we’ll get a few blunders like this leading Warner Brothers to tap out and sell DC to Disney. Then DC and Marvel would be under the same roof.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Keep banging your head, Pepose! We’re all with you on that!
November 11th, 2009 at 2:47 am
I don’t know why they are even doing Sgt. Rock - it’s already been done on TV in the 1960’s… COMBAT!
November 11th, 2009 at 5:18 am
How about they drop the Sarge and do it as
Jonah Hex 2: Hex
November 11th, 2009 at 8:21 am
DC MASSIVE FAIL.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’ve looked around on various comic boards and the comments seem to mostly sway toward not diggin’ on this version of Sgt. Rock.
I’m talking not just of the more trollish posts, but even moreso the most articulate and well mannered and thought out posts.
Most fans seem very against this Sgt. Rock.
Somebody should call attention to the reaction over the past day since the news broke to Warner Brothers and D.C. Entertainment.
Newsarama…can you get this reaction to their attention?
I’d love to finally see Sgt. Rock hit the big-screen…in the spirit and setting of the comics by Robert Kanigher and Joe Kubert.
Go to this link to see what I mean of Bruce Willis being right for the role of Sgt. Rock…
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/.bruce-willis-SGT-ROCK-LEEE777-SUPERHERO-ACTOR.jpg
November 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
It’d better have a giant mechanical spider in the movie!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Political correctness at its worse. It seems to me that the studio heads care more for what foriegners think of America’s history, rather than tell a good story. If money is an issue, you can always pull a “300″ in terms of production costs. GAH!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
right on the money, dswynne. Authenticity is what ultimately cells, not contrived crap that caters to foreign perceptions of America. The USA is still the greatest country, with the greatest comic book characters…we need to export it as is just like we used to do blue jeans.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:08 am
good lord…this reads like an Onion article, it’s so unfathomably ridiculous, especially with those three names involved…”hey, can we get the guys who screwed up John Constantine AND Batman on this movie? let’s go ahead and cast Stallone from Judge Dredd while we’re at it, really make this a piece of crap nobody will want to see!” ugh.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
NeoSamurai’s right. “Watchmen: The Movie” was an art house cake, covered with blockbuster frosting, which isn’t a bad thing, yet if you market that type of film as a typical blockbuster, you’re not going to make a lot of cash.
Still, I like the film and hope “Sgt. Rock” won’t get creatively shafted.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:35 am
STEVE @ Thats me buddy lol!! ; D
Your rite though BRUCEW WILLIS is a perfect SGT ROCK!
In WWII though of course!
P.S. Hope this pic works here lol.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@ LEEE777:
I saw your pic from looking over at CBM and saw it again from there on Google Images so I posted the link.
There’s been plans for doing a Sgt. Rock flick since ‘88 and I remember clearly of Bruce Willis being mentioned as the possibility of the actor for the title role since ‘89 in the back of a regular 2 page section of Comics Scene magazine back then.
Ever since then Sgt. Rock has always been the perfect role for Willis.
And YES on keeping it W.W.II, man! ;D