Francis Lawrence Taking DC Comics' Sgt. Rock Into the Future
by Ethan Anderton
November 10, 2009
A movie based on DC Comics' WWII hero Sgt. Rock has been stuck in development hell for quite some time and last we heard was Guy Ritchie might be at the helm until he became attached to Lobo. But that was over a year and a half ago, and THR's Heat Vision now says that Francis Lawrence (who last directed I Am Legend) is attached to direct a script from newcomer Chad St. John with super-producers Joel Silver and Akiva Goldsman guiding the project for Warner Bros. However, Sgt. Rock will be lifted from the period fight in World War II into the future to avoid feeling dated and out of tune with contemporary issues.
While hardcore fans of the comics might be aghast at this shift into the future, this is probably best for the film to reach a bigger audience. Heat Vision points out, "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." On top of that, having an exaggerated hero like Sgt. Rock isn't exactly kosher in this super-charged political climate. Dragging politics into a comic book movie might seem silly, but there have always been undertones in a film of the political and social climate that existed during the time that film was made. Hopefully it's not too politically correct, though, so we can have a bit of fun.
The appeal of Sgt. Rock was that he was a no BS guy during WWII, like Nick Fury when he was in WWII working with Captain America and Wolverine, but only time will tell.
genetic spider on Nov 10, 2009
I think the future timeline is also an excuse to give him a badass suit... similar to the accelerator suits in GI JOE.
teyhtr on Nov 10, 2009
WW2 movies and Inglorious basterds are 2 totally different types of movies IMO....SPR was a ww2 movie. Also why would having a patriotic ww2 hero be political...how fucking stuck up and PC can we get honestly. Really hate how much a sensitive little pussy everyone has become and by everyone I mean Americans.
Cody on Nov 10, 2009
the accelorator suits in GI JOE were not badass. they looked like they were made of plactic and looked way too goofy in my opinion. but i get what you're sayin.
JP on Nov 10, 2009
Sounds more like they want to get a toy line. Haven't they learned anything there at DC. Toys based on there movies have sold sense Batman Forever.
jesse on Nov 10, 2009
So, the guy who ruined Constantine and I Am Legend now wants to ruin Sgt. Rock. Sgt. Rock was created for one purpose and one purpose only; as a WW II fighting machine, not some pansified so called futuristic warrior. Someone also needs to tell Francis Lawrence that his idea for a movie has already been done; it's called 'Soldier'.
Hattori Hanzo on Nov 10, 2009
I understand their concerns. WW2 films don't exactly light the box office on fire and Ingluorious Basterds made money because of Tarantino's name and people looking for a shallow good time. As long as they keep the core spirit of the character, I won't mind.
SlashBeast on Nov 10, 2009
Marvel Studios has no problem setting one of their TOP properties, Captain America, on the WW2 backdrop. it should only be about what makes a good story. setting doesn't matter. if anything, "future" wars has been doing just as bad with terminator: salvation.
CL on Nov 10, 2009
Sgt. Rock was supposed to be the WWII version of 300. It was supposed to be an over-the-top action movie with a small squad killing the entire Nazi army, with Sgt. Rock taking out tanks with his bare hands. Okay maybe not THAT over-the-top, but somewhere in the ballpark. To contemporize the character will destroy any chance of bringing the Sgt. Rock we all know to life. Marvel isn't contemporizing Captain America, he will be a WWII hero stuck in a time as alien to him as Mars. Sgt. Rock was a comic written until 1988, we're not talking about a lost comic that was written during the 40's. Am I saying the movie will be bad? No, it could very well be an awesome flick that I'll want to see again and again in theaters. But I still wish I could see Sgt. Rock on the big screen the right way.
Chris H on Nov 10, 2009
Nothing beats The Punisher mini series, "BORN"! Somebody Do that
Gabe the Accuser on Nov 10, 2009
#4 yeah I do agree they looked silly but in terms of what it did was pretty cool regardless of how fake the cgi looked
teyhtr on Nov 11, 2009
Captain America is a huge name for audiences, it's an easier sell than Sgt. Rock.
SlashBeast on Nov 11, 2009
Accelerator Suits are just crap versions of Crysis Nano suits
Metatasian on Nov 11, 2009
Future? pfft... Sgt. Rock is WWII. As a fan of Rock when I was a kid I shake my head wondering WTF are they thinking? The mucky mucks don't get the point of Rock and they won't get a penny from me. Tank
HauntedTank on Nov 11, 2009
why the fuck are they bothering to fucking make films about 2nd rate dc comics & leaving the legends on the shelf (THE FLASH,ANOTHER BATMAN,ANOTHER SUPERMAN,WONDER WOMAN,DEATHSTROKE,NIGHTWING,ANIMAL MAN,TEEN TITIANS,AQUA MAN,THE ATOM,LOBO & THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.)so warner/dc sort your fucking heads out.
tobi,leader of the akatsuki on Nov 12, 2009
Because it's easier to get lesser-known properties onto the big screen to "test the waters" for bigger properties. Idiot.
SlashBeast on Nov 13, 2009
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.