The next first chapter in the Superman legend is due for theatrical release in 2012, with Zack Snyder as director and Tudors star Henry Cavil as the titular Last Son of Krypton.

Diane Lane will play opposite The Postman as Martha Kent, Clark’s adoptive Kansan Mom.

In each of the various origin stories surrounding Superman’s journey from a Smallville schoolboy with severe pubescent growing pains to the world-famous Man of Steel, Jonathan ‘Pa’ Kent plays a seminal role in Clark’s development.

His unwavering faith in his son lends him the courage to face a destiny much bigger than that of any ‘normal’ man or woman, and his strong moral compass sets Clark on a path away from the temptation of abusing his powers for personal gain. Sound familiar? It should, as it’s one of the most commonly regurgitated movie tropes found in heroic fiction.

Enter booming theatrical trailer voice: The fate of the (world/universe/galaxy)… Hangs on the shoulders of one (man/woman/group)… The only question is… Are they ready to face their destiny?

Cue the beginning of a spiritual/emotional/literal journey in which a seemingly average individual (or group) must come to terms with their role in a greater picture.  Which is where the plot device of the wise mentor figure comes in to school young Clark/Luke/Peter Parker on what it means to be great yet humble.

Alright, we know the drill. Jonathan Kent is your cut-and-paste hero mentor, and Clark’s the confused hero who must find the courage to face his destiny. But is Whitney Houston’s Bodyguard really believable as the man who sets young C.K. on that path? Can Kevin ‘Tin Cup’ Costner convincingly play the Man of Steel’s gruff-but-good-hearted mentor/father?

Furthermore, despite all of the Academy Awards it pulled in, did anyone REALLY like Dances With Wolves?

Just joshing K.Co, I loved Prince of Thieves. To any and all who may be skeptical of Kevin Costner playing Clark Kent’s human Dad, I say this: It could be worse.

Here are seven examples of mentor figures in classic hero movies that could have been cast differently, to varyingly entertaining affect:

(If you are a Hollywood movie wizard looking to reboot any of these films in the near future, I heartily encourage you to consider my casting suggestions.)

Morpheus (the Matrix), as portrayed by Lil’ Jon

When I first watched the Matrix trilogy, one thing really brought me down: there weren’t enough teeth Grillz. This may surprise you, but there actually weren’t any – diamond-studded, platinum or otherwise.

Not to mention, Morpheus could have stood to be a little less bloody sullen. Much of Neo’s initial scepticism about his destiny as The One could have been alleviated by some enthusiastic ‘yeahayyyy’s and ‘oh-kayyyy’s.

Still aren’t convinced? Picture Neo’s initial emergence from the pod after taking the red pill accompanied by the Lil’ Jon classic, “Outta Your Mind“.

Gandalf (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) – as portrayed by Tommy Chong

So a bunch of little dudes with furry feet embark on an epic journey to a volcano while being chased by shadowy blurs on horseback and the spookiest little crackfiend this side of Boise, Idaho. I’m not going to come out and say that the Lord of The Rings trilogy of novels, which really found its immense popularity in the 1960’s, holds any exceptional appeal to horticulture enthusiasts… But really, who else would enjoy a bunch of books comprised three quarters of walking.

Not to knock Sir Ian McKellen’s excellent turn as the legendary Wizard of Middle Earth, but if anyone else has the potential to portray wizardly wisdom with an eccentric twist, it’s Tommy Chong.

“Thou, like, shalt not pass, man.”

Professor X (X-Men, X2: X-Men United, and X-Men: The Last Stand) – as portrayed by ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin

I know what you’re thinking: I only picked Steve Austin for this role because both he and Charles Xavier are both bald. Well, good sir or madam, you couldn’t be more wrong.

This WWE star-turned-movie-sensation (see: Damage, The Stranger) is perfect for the role of a wizened educator of gifted teens. Stone Cold is known for his status as an upstanding role model for youth, a constant testament to the drive for personal success (the term ‘personal success’ here is interchangeable with ‘whooping ass’). Though now retired from fighting the ring, Steve Austin had always been passionate about challenging individuals who sought to repress others – as is evidenced by his 1997-1999 rivalry with the owner of the then-WWF Vince MacMahon.

Not to mention, Austin spent much of his wrestling career wearing a knee brace. I trust I won’t have to spell out this obvious connection to Professor X.

Splinter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1-3) – as voiced by Gilbert Gottfried

Gilbert Gottfried, already a talented voice actor in his own right, needs work. Yes, the lovable, sour-faced actor who played Mr. Peabody in the Problem Child movies has fallen on hard times as of late. As you may have heard, he was recently fired from his job as the Aflac Duck on account of ‘insensitive’ Tweets regarding Japan and their current state of national misfortune.

I implore you, fans of Iago the parrot from Disney’s Aladdin,  look inside yourself and think hard on whether you want the national treasure that is the droning voice of Gilbert Gottfried to be silenced.  Right, now riding on that wave of Gottfried empowerment, ask yourself who the least memorable character from the original Ninja Turtles movie was. Easy, Danny, April’s bosses’ kid who gets mixed up in the Foot Clan in a misguided act of teenage rebellion.

But ask yourself who the least memorable puppeteered-character was from the original TMNT, and you’ll invariable come up with Splinter. Little-known fact: Kevin Clash, the actor who voiced Splinter in the first two Ninja Turtles movies is actually also famous for being the voice of Sesame Street’s Elmo.

Elmo, a red, fuzzy, effeminate and psychologically stunted monster, leading the Ninja Turtles against the forces of The Shredder? I don’t think so.

Please hire Gilbert Gottfried as Splinter in any future Ninja Turtles live action movies. He could really use the work.

Aslan (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) – as voiced by Michael Cera

Liam Neeson as a CGI lion – stuffiest anthropomorphized Jesus metaphor ever. If I’m going to pay to watch a talking lion lead four annoying English children to battle against the White Witch, I expect my lion-cum-flimsy-religious-archetype to at least be relatable.

Who, I ask, is more relatable than the forever awkward teenager Michael Cera? I realize that casting someone notoriously typecast as a socially awkward youth might be counter-intuitive to a mentor role that calls for someone with the wisdom of the ages, but I think the gains here outweigh the losses.

Gain: Guaranteed scenes of awkward sexual tension between Aslan and a female talking animal, probably an ostrich, in which they ’stand around’ and make misguided attempts at small talk. Hilarity ensues.

Gain: The audience finally finds a voice in the film in which the annoying characters of Peter, Lucy, Edmund, and Susan may be dryly made fun of (without their awareness).

Gain: Narnia gains a bigger fanbase in the twenty something female demographic, who are apparently the most susceptible to Cera’s nerd-sexy image. Seriously, like every girl I know.

Obi-Wan Kenobi (those Star Wars movies) – as portrayed by Bob Saget

This is almost out of place here, in that I genuinely believe Danny Tanner from Full House could play a wise old master of the force capable of steering a wayward youth away from the dark side. Granted, Danny Tanner failed in this task with his television children – who infamously went on to become methamphetamine addicts (Jodie Sweetin) and the Olson twins. But you can’t hold that against him, unless your grasp on the blurring lines between television and reality is even foggier than my own.

Which would be difficult, as I often refer to Danny Tanner as my own adoptive father. Who doesn’t though, really?

Uncle Ben (Spider-Man)  – as portrayed by Charlie Sheen

“With great Sheen, comes great… Sheen”

Oh jeebus, forgive me. I couldn’t resist.

Though Charlie’s dad Martin Sheen has already been attached to the role of Uncle Ben in the forthcoming Spider-Man reboot, there’s still time to launch a petition to replace the West Wing actor with his batsh*t insane son.

What Peter Parker obviously needs in the next Spider-Man movie is someone to encourage him to pursue a three-way with Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane while replacing his web-shooter fluid with vials of Tiger’s Blood.

Could you imagine Charlie ‘bi-winning’ Sheen telling Peter with his dying breath to ‘fight the trolls’ and imparting the encouraging words, ‘you too could be a warlock one day’?

Aunt May would, naturally, be played by Traci Lords.

In a perfect world…

The Fabler Blog, fueling Hollywood creativity since 2009.

-Post by Kevin de Vlaming

At the other end of the lawsuit, we find… the artist responsible for creating the original likenesses of all of the above properties.

Okay, okay – so as we all know, legendary comic book artist Jack Kirby has been dead and gone for over a decade and a half now. The man who (alongside Stan Lee, Joe Simon, Steve Ditko, and several others) helped build Marvel as a major player in the comic industry is not in fact the direct catalyst behind this latest nugget of comic book conflict.

Last September, Jack Kirby’s heirs made it known that they intended to invoke a copyright law which would terminate existing copyright claims to many of the characters Kirby co-created. Apparently, there are certain tenets within the murky waters of rights and ownership legislation that allow an author (or that author’s heirs) to regain copyrights a certain number of years after those rights were initially granted out.

Last year, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel made headlines with a similar court case. They wound up winning a packet of rights back concerning the Man of Steel, including his origin story, the names of his parents (as well as of the planet Krypton), and publishing rights to some of the earliest Superman appearances in comics. Marc Toberoff, the lawyer who represented Siegel’s heirs, is now onboard helping to defend the Kirby copyright claims.

The big news now is that, as of a week and a half ago, Marvel is suing to render those claims invalid.

And so the soap opera that revolves around creator rights versus those of the major comic book publishing companies spills over into yet another decade.

This daytime drama is one that has been around as long as the very concept of comics as we know them today.

Jerry Siegel’s own struggles with creative ownership go back to 1938, when he and Superman co-creator Joe Shuster originally sold the copyright for the character to Action Comics for a measly $130. After receiving a comparatively tiny fraction of the revenue generated by their creation for nearly a decade, they sued to void their original contract in 1947.

The attempt was met with failure, and for several decades more the creators of the most wildly successful comic character in history continued to go uncredited and underpaid. In 1973 they made another (ultimately futile) attempt to regain rights to Superman, though at least this time the press rallied around their cause enough to effect some kind of change. Warner Communications (who by that time inherited the rights to the character through the acquisition of National Comics) responded to press coverage of the unfair treatment of Siegel and Shuster by offering them each a pension of $20,000 per year.

In addition, they would finally be credited with creating Superman on all Supes-related media. Over thirty years after the event.

After Siegel and Shuster passed away in 1996 and 1992 (respectively), their heirs attempted to reclaim copyrights in 1999 and several times again between 2002 and 2008. It wasn’t until just last August that they actually gained some significant ground in the courts.

Marvel has had its own share of discontent within the ranks of its creative talent to deal with in the past.

One notable example would be Marvel’s infamous tendency to merchandise characters and art created by freelance artists without allowing those individuals any creative control or proportionately reasonable royalties.

In 1991, Marvel experienced a coup of sorts in reaction to this. A number of popular artists then-freelancing for Marvel decided to collectively demand more rights with regards to their creative contributions to the company.

Many are now familiar with how Marvel’s flat-out refusal of their requests led those disenfranchised illustrators to branch off to form their own independent comic company, Image Comics. Those artists were Todd McFarlane, Erik Larsen, Rob Liefeld, Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri, Whilce Portatio, and Jim Valentino.

If you’re starting to get a sense that ‘copyright law’ and ‘creative rights’ are vastly important terms in comics, you’re bang on the money. As an artistic medium historically dependant on complex relationships between publishers, artists, writers, distributors, and everyone else in-between, ‘who controls what’ and ‘who deserves how’ much become paramount questions.

It’s no wonder that many prefer to go the route of self-publishing their creative material.

Establishing creator rights in the comic book industry is such an integral concern to artists that many even got together to draft their own ‘Comic Creator’s Bill of Rights‘ back in the eighties. Scott McCloud, Dave Sim, Kevin Eastman, and Peter Laird were but a few of the big-name creators involved in the Bill’s conception.

The latest case of the Kirby heirs versus Marvel does represent another soap-operatic episode in an industry pointedly prone to such drama, but it is important nonetheless to pay attention to its outcome.

Some are claiming that the heirs are merely partaking in a cash grab now that the window to terminate existing Kirby copyrights is approaching, especially since Hollywood is experiencing a surge of popularity with movies based on comics. It doesn’t help their case that the initial letters of termination were distributed to most of the major production studios in Hollywood, nor does it help that they came on the heels of news that Disney was buying Marvel.

The argument put forth by Marc Toberoff on behalf of the Kirby Heirs is that they are just seeking “proper compensation and credit” for the lasting creative contributions he made to Marvel in his lifetime.

Meanwhile, Marvel claims that Jack Kirby’s creations were all work-for-hire assignments, and thus not covered by laws regarding termination of copyright.

Toberoff has pointed out that, “It is a standard claim predictably made by comic book companies to deprive artists, writers, and other talent of all rights in their work.”

I’m tentatively siding with Toberoff and the heirs here, mostly because I don’t want to see further precedent set against artists (or their heirs) trying to regain some form of artistic control or monetary compensation from corporations that have reaped disproportionately vast profit from their creations.

That being said, here’s hoping that – whatever the outcome – what Jack himself would’ve wanted winds up factoring in at least a little amidst all of the talk of dollars and cents.

-Written by Kevin de Vlaming