Attack the Block Director Joe Cornish Rumored To Be A Contender For Star Trek 3

I think it's safe to assume that as soon as J.J. Abrams' was announced as the director of Disney's Star Wars: Episode VII, fans of his rebooted Star Trek series became worried he wouldn't be coming back for the third installment. Well it seems that those fans' nightmare is coming true, as the first replacement name in the director's chair for Star Trek 3 has already been leaked. So who's the brave director rumored to be taking the reigns from Abrams? None other than British director Joe Cornish, best known for his collaborations with Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) and his directional debut with the critically acclaimed independent sci-fi film Attack the Block back in 2011.

Abrams' sequel to the already successful (Yet extremely risky) reboot of the classic TV show; Star Trek Into Darkness, has already fared well both financially and critically. The momentum for the series next film has already been set in motion, so it's needless to say that the anticipation for Star Trek 3 is definitely apparent by Paramount. With Abrams busy with his directional duties on Star Wars: Episode VII, the question of whether they'll wait for Abrams to return for the third film or will he just be replaced still remain lingering. But rumors suggest that the studio is indeed already looking at a list of candidates to replace Abrams, and the name headlining the list is Joe Cornish. 
Cornish isn't exactly the first guy who'd come to mind when thinking of who'd continue Abram's Star Trek films, which has now become a such a massive special effect filled series of summer blockbusters. While Attack the Block has been widely considered by critics to be a return to the classic more low budget sci-fi films of the past which include much more character development and less over the top CGI, is it really a style that fits the current Trek series? 
While Abram's Star Trek films do include all the big CGI and action set pieces we expect in summer blockbusters, it's characters have still remained at the heart if it's script, and writer Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci haven't missed a beat with the humor and original traits of these classic characters. Cornish is also a well known writer who's been able to translate his unique sense of humor on screen, and most importantly; people actually find it funny. Bringing someone like Cornish on board could be just what the series needs if Abrams actually departs, and while he may lack the blockbuster helming experience that many people are concerned about, the guy's collaborated in the writing department on some of Edgar Wright's best work to date. Not to mention he'd be reteaming with popular Wright collaborator Simon Pegg as Enterprise crew member Scotty, which could lead to some funny as hell character moments. Even if he doesn't end up directing, having Cornish involved some how with the film's script would definitely me a step in the right direction.
Now it's still open to assumption as to just what other names are on this director shortlist for Star Trek 3. With so many young up and coming sci-fi directors in the game right now including Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy, Oblivion), Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium), Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) my personal favorite Rian Johnson (Looper), and even Edgar Wright himself, Paramount is hopefully at least taking some of these directors into consideration. In other words, expect a lot of new names popping up for the gig left and right in the coming months.

So who would you trust in the director's chair for Star Trek 3 if Abrams doesn't return? Is Joe Cornish a good enough replacement for you? Leave your thoughts below.

Review: Fast and Furious 6- A Ride Worth Taking!

Fast and Furious; a movie that has evolved over the course of years from a almost childish and comical film to what is now a full blown saga worth watching. After The Fast and Furious,  the series grew more aggressive and built itself into a more mature storyline. Fast Five proved that the Fast and Furious films had potential with the addition of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as a formidable opponent. Now with Fast and Furious 6, we have a film that can serve itself as a stand alone film, yet it proves effective when looking back on the prior films.

Fast and Furious 6 has embellished itself within the best cinematography possible for the region of fast paced story telling director Justin Lin uses. The amazing shots during long race sequences help keep things fresh and exciting rather than the typical dragged and boring car chases of other films. With plot twists, tie ins, and a crazy after credit scene, fans and viewers alike are in for a treat. The action is well paced and well timed, and the villain Owen Shaw is one I would love to see return if possible, and is a threat that to the heroes themselves is a force to be reckoned with.
Another thing well placed throughout the film is comedy. The comedy is light hearted and works well relieving the very emotional tones in some regions. In my opinion the cast did a phenomenal job, yet there is one problem with the film; the brushed over plot, which concerns a military chip that is suppose to power a device known as nightshade. While it's understandable that this a film (And technically the entire series) is relying much more on character personalities and action then actual creative storytelling, Owen's motivations are pretty vague and hard to believe. But Luke Evans' outstanding and menacing performance is able to help overcome the character's significant motivational flaws.
In terms of acting, Sung Kang, Luke Evans, Vin Diesel, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson all gave pretty believable performances. Chris Bridges and Tyrese Gibson helped influence a lot of the comedic portion of the film which worked extremely well amongst the audience, I even caught myself giggling at some of the remarks made (baby oil). Supporting characters held up their end of the roles so the film did not seem as though it were Vin Diesel, The Rock, Paul Walker, and friends, but more of a complete cast of people who portrayed the fact that they were criminals turned heroes at the end of the day.
Another big aspect of these movies are the vehicles, some of the more exotic being seen in the background (The Ferrari Italia 458), some being custom made such as the cool ramp cars used by Owen Shaw, and some not even there like the Ferrari Enzo replica. The ramp cars being custom made for the film were cool, not over used and abused, consistently pointing out the fact that they are one of a kind, but interesting enough to be something noticeable and memorable. Slowly Fast and Furious is improving the car brands displayed which helps improve viewer interest.

So with all said and done, the film makes viewers like myself anxious for what Fast and Furious 7 has in store. Supposedly to be filming in Los Angeles, it will be interesting to see what hot cars, hot women, and deep twist in storyline the Fast and Furious saga has waiting for fans. But for now, it's safe to say this series has definitely proven itself as one of the most successful action sagas currently in production.

I give Fast and Furious 6 4 out of 5: 

What are your thoughts and comments on the newest Fast and Furious film? Leave your thoughts below!

Review: The Great Gatsby - The Pretty Darn Good Gatsby

Widely considered as the greatest piece of American literature of all time, F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby has been converted to screen countless times, starting in a 1926 stage adaptation, rumored to be the best of the bunch, but alas has been lost, with the trailer only remaining. The most notable is the 1974 version starring Robert Redford, a film I never really liked because it was such a direct adaptation of the source, making it quite dull and bland at times. A very forgettable TV movie was made in the year 2000 starring Paul Rudd which was kind of dire. So it was about time Romeo + Juliet's Baz Luhrmann got his hands on such a classic piece. All looks good then? Oh yes and Jay Z is the executive producer. W-what. I don't mean that's bad, the executive producer has very little creative input in the final product of a film, it just seemed really odd. Oh well, on with the review.

Let's start with the cast. Reading the book for the first time, and about a year before I had seen the film, I imagined the protagonist to be like DiCaprio, and he really fits the character. He can be smug, kind, emotional, angry, just as the character needs. A risk of casting him would be that like, for example, some Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt films where the audience will only see the actor rather than the character because they are so famous. This wasn't really a problem here, with Leo convincingly portraying a much-loved and notorious literature character without us having to relate to his real life famous persona. Which is all lovely.
Tobey Maguire, not so much. He was never really a great actor, one of the reasons Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 worked so well was that they were good despite the fact he was their star. He performs as well as Tobey does, but he suffers just muttering his lines with little emotion, except for anger and awe. That being said, those characteristics are very important to Nick Carraway's character, so there's no real harm done. Not exceptional but by no accounts offensive.
Carey Mulligan performs excellently as Daisy Buchanan, she nails the frivolous innocence and confusion that's vital to the character, and she has great chemistry with all he other cast members, including DiCaprio, which only strengthens her scenes and her relationships onscreen. Very nice.
Her husband Tom, as played by Zero Dark Thirty and Warrior's Joel Edgerton, is absolutely brilliant, and I feel that the film lights up when he's onscreen. He's threatening, but in the same way that Christoph Waltz is threatening in Inglourious Basterds, meaning that he doesn't have to be overtly menacing to become sinister. That said, when he does get angry, he really is threatening. Very good acting and great representation of the character, with great chemistry with all, especially his mistress Myrtle (Isla Fisher).
Talking of Isla Fisher, I'll talk about the rest of the supporting cast. Not as strong, I'm afraid, not from an acting perspective but mainly from a writing angle. They're characters never really amount to anything important, except for when the script applies to them, which happens once for each of them. Isla Fisher's Myrtle has very little interaction with her husband Wilson (Zero Dark Thirty's Jason Clarke). The book's love interest for Nick, Jordan (played by Elizabeth Debicki) doesn't actually become romantically involved with Tobey. In fact she doesn't do much, which is because the story is compromised substantially. Let's talk about that more...
The film looks and sounds great. The contemporary soundtrack actually works, it's made to sound near to 20s music enough but has the bold, garish feel of the film. There's a lot of bold, garish effects and sets, which only add to the rushed hectic feel of the film, which in some ways is quite exciting. There's a very nice soundtrack piece, Young and Beautiful by Lana Del Rey, which is the main theme for Daisy and Gatsby. Have a listen.
Baz seems to have tried to replicate the feel of the book rather than the substance. The book wasn't necessarily about just Gatsby, the whole point was about the failure to achieve the American Dream, along with greed and superficiality and whatnot, whereas the film focuses almost completely on the love plot, with little meaning other than the character's motives. There are some symbolic moments, the film opens with a long shot of a green light coming through the mist, which becomes integral to the plot and of Gatsby's emotions. What this means is that characters are left to mill about saying some stuff that doesn't add up to much, meaning there are long periods or scenes which needed not be in there and are kinda there for show (a bit like Gatsby's life actually. SYMBOLISM.) This doesn't make for unenjoyable viewing, it just means that large meaningful sections of the book that made it so good are left out. Not bad, in fact it was necessary for a film adaptation, the problem is there's so much classic substance left out.
The Great Gatsby is near impossible to translate perfectly onto screen, and each of the films have a sort of generic feeling to them, like no ground breaking focus is being achieved. That said, this does well enough, making a highly enjoyable and emotional film that's very well made both technically and dramatically, even if it is not the best adaptation.

I give The Great Gatsby 3.5 stars

What did you think of The Great Gatsby? Would you say it was a good adaption?

Michael Bay's Transformers 4 Rumored To Feature Dinobots, Galvatron, and More

Michael Bay's Transformers saga is preparing to birth a new film which is currently known as Transformers 4. Once Dark of the Moon took place, it was over, the world was saved, the villains were dead, Optimus said manly quote, the end. But in order to give the fans a little something more, a new story book is opened, revolving around Mark Walhberg's new character, a slightly B/C grade cast, explosions, robots, and Michael's Bays favorite; exotic women. Recently rumors have spread now spread on just what alien foreigners Bay wants to include in the new Transformers installment, take a look at who these characters are below. 

The first character we are hearing is set to be included is none other than the villain Galvatron, who's basically Megatron after he is "remade" by the destroyer Unicron. Then there's Lockdow; a Decpeticon bounty hunter often displayed as a muscle car, Drift; a Decepticon turned Autobot who wants to find his place among the Autobot ranks once again. There's also of course the returning lead Autobots Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. As for the Dinobot characters, we'll Grimlock, Swoop, and the rest of the Dinobot gang who are all Autobots who transform into dinosaurs. All these rumored character can lead us to assuming  Unicron will possibly be included in the film, who's pretty much the most bad-ass character to roam the saga since Megatron and Optimus themselves.
Before the movie has even begun filming, we slowly edge our way into major questions, for example:

  • Why is it that the Dinobots transform into human dinosaurs even though they are aliens from a foreign planet?
  • What are the chances that Unicron would just find Megatron in the deep depths of space?
  • How many Decepticons are gonna become Autobots randomly?
  • Is Mark Wahlberg gonna do the Shia LaBeouf mid movie squeal? 
  • Is Bumblebee ever gonna talk again?
  • What other of the fan favorites is gonna be killed off in a abrupt way? (RIP Ironhide)
  • How many car logos will be shown throughout the course of the movie?
  • Why in the hell are the Autobots going overseas again? (China) Remember the last time we went over seas with giant alien robots.
  • And most importantly, will this movie take the time to model a more gritty and respectable Transformers series?
The Transformers trilogy continuation does have potential with a follow up to Dark of the Moon. If not rushed and mashed together like a preschool child's arts and craft homework, there is a possibility of getting better for the trilogy, but the way its beginning to sound is that of the dreadful sequel we know but not love as Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. So far the stars are lining up in that manner. Both include unnecessarily old characters (Dinobots in TF4/Jetfire in Revenge of the Fallen), and are located in a foreign Country (China in TF4/Eygpt in Revenge of the Fallen). In the name of Bruce Almighty I PRAY that there is no object in specific that they are looking for again such as in the previous films. The Allspark cube, the piece of the cube, the matrix, the pillars.
Transformers 4 has Mark Wahlberg (The Fighter, Ted, Pain and Gain) as the main character Flynn Vincent, a father of the film's other lead played by Nicola Peltz (The Last Airbender), which may lead up to some both funny and more serious acting moments. One of the few good moves I like by the movie is that they are rumored to be switching up character designs and with a new Camero being released soon, it is almost automatic to think that Bumblebee will be sporting a new and improved design. As for action and events to occur, it will be interesting to see what direction the series is taken, whether it be over done and unrealistic or taken a slight bit darker.
What does Michael Bay have in store for the Transformers saga, who knows? While we have yet to get a full jist of what Bay has in store for the new installment until we see a trailer, I'm trying to conjure a Transformers Armada Fan-Cast of my own.

What would you like to see in TF4, any specific events or iconic characters? Reply Below.

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness - Warp Speed, Mr Abrams.

Four years on from JJ Abrams' action packed Star Trek that redefined the franchise and, most of all, made it cool to like it again, comes the sequel, Into Darkness. Oddly named, maybe but Abrams has claimed the title lacks a colon because that colon portrays all there is people don't like about sequels. Although that doesn't actually stop it being a sequel J.J...

To start off, one of the most important parts of the Star Trek universe is the characters, which have definitely  improved since the last installment. There's more depth to them, some characters have brilliant moments (Sulu has a nice one in the captain's chair) and their interactions and relationships have grown, especially between Kirk and Spock. Some characters seem to be shelved for room of new ones, but some seem integral to the plot and it's really great to see this, one of my favourite parts of Star Trek was seeing everyone in the crew doing something and working together in order to achieve something. Karl Urban and Simon Pegg of course play Bones and Scotty respectively, and these characters seem to be balanced perfectly, contributing both to the plot and providing some good comic relief. It gets to the stage after Bones' constant sayings and quips that he has to be told by Kirk to 'Stop it with the metaphors', it's just a nice touch.
Anyway the film starts out with a tense opener on a Class M planet, where the Enterprise attempts to save a primitive species by stopping a volcano explode, thus endangering Spock's life and Kirk has to make a decision, save Spock or go by the Prime Directive which honestly NO-ONE LISTENS TO. That thing gets broken so many times. There's a great moment slightly later on about their mission there, which gives some insight into the motives and whatnot of Kirk.
There's great action in this movie as well, with rarely a dull scene. However, this can possibly be conceived as a fault, as JJ Abrams (same with the previous Star Trek movie) seems to put scenes in this movie for the sake of action and tension, rather than it contributing to the plot, for example the snow dog chase in Star Trek '09 and the scene in this movie where Bones gets his hand stuck in a torpedo. Nice moments but utterly pointless.
That said there's no real problem with the plot, it's simple enough. The crew of the Enterprise go after a fugitive terrorist man and in doing so risk war with the Klingons (sadly, no Worf this time around). There's some twists and turns and fights and jumps and lasers and it's great. There may not be that much room for character development but in the small spaces that there are, it's some pretty good stuff.
Now the villain. To start off, Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic. He's really menacing at times and you can actually fear him, opposed to the raging Eric Bana in '09. To say any more, it could kinda be a giant spoiler so if you don't want any parts of the plot hinted at, although nothing will be directly stated, READ ON.


Personally I have no problem with what they did with his character. They didn't ruin him, Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job so that's fine. The only problem with that character was that his motives were kinda dumb in comparison, although it was a nice set-up for a later plot point. So that's okay.
That later plot point being that thing Kirk does. It's pretty obvious when you see it, and it's also pretty obvious what it's referencing to. I have no problem with that scene and the twist they did on it, it was a great way of showing these characters developments, showing Kirk as logical and Spock as emotional. There were a few added nice references to boot which made it good.
What I didn't like, and this will go over some people's heads but not many, what I didn't like was what Spock said directly after Kirk did the thing he just did. It was dumb. It took away the tension and the rich emotion, which to be fair there definitely was, in that scene. It's no surprise or development that Spock gets angry, hell he almost strangled Kirk in the last one before jettisoning him from the ship. It would have been great to see him cry or something, something we've barely seen Spock do. It' hardly a reference anyway, the original...thing was so brilliant because we didn't take it seriously, it was just pure Star Trek gold. So how are we meant to take it seriously now? I don't have a problem with the justification into why Spock did it, it just didn't work.


There's no doubt that this film was very well made, technically and dramatically. My favourite sequence was the one on the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, where we got brilliant and funny character development, then a sweet chase scene, then Klingons of course and then a great action scene. It was just brilliant. What's more, one of the reasons why it was so good was that it felt like Star Trek, it wasn't artificial sci-fi, it was these characters and these settings working together in a way we recognized. Which was very nice. 
The film looks and sounds amazing, with great sweeping shots of the Enterprise, the futuristic Earth environments and different worlds, plus some great sets and CGI. The score is an updated version of the '09 music, composed by Michael Giacchino. Enterprising Young Men was always a favourite of mine from the previous film's score, so this is the new version, which still sounds great:
Alas, the curse of the Abrams strikes again. The problem is, JJ Abrams (or JJ Abrams' damn writers more like) cannot do endings. Mission: Impossible III, great movie, ending was just Tom Cruise running to somewhere, which as great as it is, was kinda dull. Star Trek '09, great movie, ending fell apart a lot (why was Nero's shop destroyed in the black hole, surely it was just turn up somewhere else or was it already blown up? Also how did the blast jettison them away, it's a black hole, not even light can escape). Super 8, fantastic movie, as soon as we saw the alien it kinda lost its steam. The same applies to Into Darkness. The 'climax' doesn't feel right, like it's leading to something, we don't see most of the wrapping up of events and it's just explained in exposition, and they fail to mention the outcome of something pretty major. Oh wells. 
REFERENCE TIME. There's the more obvious ones, like characters and plot points, and there's the smaller ones, the best prompting brilliant lines such as 'Bones, what are you doing with that Tribble?'. There's also little ones which I'll leave to you to find out. My point is, J.J. succeeds in putting in these little references that make the film all that better, and they are good, they do add to the film.
All in all, Into Darkness is a lot of fun, it's thrilling, emotional and action-packed. Some things will annoy some people, but even they will enjoy it. It may not be as fresh as Star Trek '09 was, but it's definitely as entertaining. As it stands, it's definitely in my top 5 Star Trek movies, maybe only just, but it's still up there. So where next? Well, if you'll remember, The Original Series was about the Enterprise's five year mission, so maybe that's where they boldly go, or maybe we'll see more of the Klingons and their skirmishes. Point is, the possibilities are endless. 
Into Darkness may not go where no man has gone before, but it sure as hell goes there boldly.

I give Star Trek Into Darkness 3.5 stars out of 5

So what did you think of Star Trek Into Darkness? Did it live up to your expectations?

X-Men: Days of Future Past New Set Photos, Character Additions, And Rumored Cameos

I think it's safe to say there's a lot of hype surrounding Bryan Singer's (The Usual Suspects, Superman Returns) latest installment to the X-Men franchise; X-Men: Days of Future Past. Set to feature both the cast of X-Men: First Class and the returning stars from the original X-Men films, Bryan Singer has now confirmed that two new characters are being added to the mix. He also has given us our first look at many of the film's X-Men with their new costumes including Ellen Page's Shadowcat, Halle Berry's Storm, James McAvoy's Charles Xavier, and Hugh Jackman's latest look as Wolverine.

The set photos released via director Bryan Singer's Twitter give us our first look at what costumes the X-Men will be sporting this time around, as well as Wolverine's look that seems to draw some comparison to his look in the Days of Future Past comic book arc. Singer has released photos of Patrick Stewart reprising his role as Professor X, along with Shawn Ashmore who plays Ice Man wearing motion capture censors, Ellen Page suit up as Kitty Pride/Shadowcat, and Halle Berry's new look as Storm. But probably the most interesting of all the character photos Singer has put up is James McAvoy's 70s era Charles Xavier, who looks very different from the last time we saw him in X-Men First Class. Take a look below:
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Now as for the rumored cameos, we now have confirmation that Famke Janssen will be reprising her role as Jean Grey in The Wolverine as seen in the most recent trailer for the film. While Singer hasn't given word on whether Jean is set to make an appearance in Days of Future Past, but given that  director James Mangold has stated the events of The Wolverine take place directly before that of Future Past, it's not too far fetched to at least assume she'll be making a cameo.
But the latest rumor is that James Marsden; best known for his role as Scott Summers/Cyclops in the original X-Men films, was seen on a plane to Montreal with Halle Berry where it just so happens she's filming Days of Future Past. While someone just saying they saw Berry and Marsden on a plane together to where they're filming Future Past may seem like complete BS, many people may recall that a cab driver had let slip that he drove Hugh Jackman to film a scene for X-Men First Class, and that turned out to be legit. Although Marsden's Cyclops did die in Brett Ratner's X-Men: The Last Stand, it isn't totally impossible to see his return here, especially with all the alternate reality stuff going on in Days of Future Past. We've already seen that Singer's bringing back Patrick Stewart Professor X who also died in The Last Stand, so maybe Singer has a specific way in mind to explain these characters return. None the less for now the Marsden cameo is still strictly rumor, but will update if there's any confirmation of it from him or Singer.
And the last rumor circling around does in fact involve Patrick Stewart's Professor X who like Marsden's Cyclops died in X-Men: The Last Stand.  Well according to JoBlo, director James Mangold and Hugh Jackman were filming reshoots over the weekend, and one of these was set to be a scene that would connect the end of The Wolverine with Days of Future Past. The scene is described to involve Wolverine in an airport in Montreal, returning from the events of The Wolverine in Japan. Then time freezes, and an apparently now walking Professor X (Patrick Stewart) confronting him as they walk out together. While this is still strictly rumor as of yet, some sort of connection between The Wolverine and Days of Future Past would make a lot of sense, and using an alternate reality version of Professor X confronting him seems like a fitting ending scene (Or possibly end-credit scene) to connect the two.
Now along with all the new set photos, Singer has also revealed a photo confirming the inclusion of two new X-Men in Future Past; Bishop and Warpath. Lucas Bishop is the time traveling mutant who visits the X-Men from an apocalyptic future in the comics, where as Warpath is the Apache Native American younger brother of former X-Men Thunderbird who possess superhuman strength and and speed an is a founding member of the X-Force team.  It's safe to say that these are the roles that Omar Sy (Untouchables) and Boo Boo Stewart (Twilight) were casted for. While I had predicted Omar was indeed playing Bishop in our last post, with confirmation that the character will be included and with Omar as the only African American male casted in the film, it's almost a given that he'll be taking on the role. As for Boo Boo, many had thought he'd be playing Thunderbird because of his Native American decent, but it seems he'll in fact be playing Thunderbird's younger brother Warpath.
What do you think of the latest Future Past photos? Are you excited to see Warpath and Bishop join the team?

Iron Man 3 Director Shane Black Set To Helm Doc Savage Movie Adaption For Sony

Shane Black has been making waves recently after directing and co-writing Marvel's first Phase 2 film; Iron Man 3. While the director's best known for his work writing for such action films as Lethal Weapon, Last Action Hero, and The Last Boy Scout, and his directional debut Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, it seems he'll now be continuing his streak of comic book adaptions with a film adaption of classic pulp character Doc Savage for Sony.

According to Variety Black has signed on to direct the Doc Savage film for Sony which will most likely kick off a franchise, and he's also set to co-write with Anthony Bagarozzi and Chuck Mondry. While Black has stated his interest in making a Doc Savage film in the past, it seems his recent success both critically and financially with Iron Man 3 has finally pushed Sony into kicking the project into gear with Black at the helm.
With some many comic book characters getting their own films recently, it was only a matter of time before we would begin to see studios adapt pulp comic characters too. Disney and Gore Verbinski's adaption of The Lone Ranger is a already proof that big studios are looking to classic pulp characters for blockbuster films. Other studios are already attempting to do the same with the all new reboot Zorro Reborn starring Gael Garcia Bernal set to be released next year from Fox, and David Yate's upcoming Warner Bros. Tarzan film starring Alexander Skarsgard which is still facing production issues. It still remains unknown whether Savage will be modernized or will remain as a period piece in the 1930s time period that the comics were originally published in. But given Black's track record it's pretty hard to imagine a Savage film that won't be very action or comedy based coming from his writing and direction.
For those who aren't familiar with the Doc Savage character here's his brief character bio:

Doc Savage's real name was Clark Savage, Jr. He was a physician, surgeon, scientist, adventurer, inventor, explorer, researcher, and, as revealed in The Polar Treasure, a musician. A team of scientists assembled by his father deliberately trained his mind and body to near superhuman abilities almost from birth, giving him great strength and endurance, a photographic memory, a mastery of the martial arts, and vast knowledge of the sciences. Doc is also a master of disguise and an excellent imitator of voices. "He rights wrongs and punishes evildoers." Dent described the hero as a mix of Sherlock Holmes' deductive abilities, Tarzan's outstanding physical abilities, Craig Kennedy's scientific education, and Abraham Lincoln's goodness.

It's also worth noting that the Doc Savage adventure novels served as a basis for the Indiana Jones character and his adventures. Now if Shane Black's adaption turns out to be a success, it'll be interesting to see whether it opens the door for any other pulp comic characters such as The Phantom (Who already received a pretty embarrassing adaption starring Billy Zane), The Avenger, The Shadow, Spider, or even if it can help get Fox to set David Yate's Tarzan film into production. We can probably expect Black to cast a well known leading star as Savage, and I could personally see Aaron Eckhart (Battle: Los Angeles, Olympus Has Fallen) as a good fit for the part.
So what do you think of Shane Black directing the Doc Savage film? Who do you think should play Savage?