While he isn't really a "super" hero (at least not in the innate superpower sense), William Katt -aka- Ralph Hinkley -aka- The Greatest American Hero has always been my top dog. So, I've been pretty apprehensive about a big-screen reboot of the wacky '80s series -- my nights plagued with nightmares of Zac Efron, topped with a really bad perm, flying into walls.

But at the very least, the new feature might get some old-school cameos. According to MTV, Connie Sellecca says that the famous trio -- her, Katt, and the splendid Robert Culp, have all received offers for cameos in the remake. Whether they take Stephen J. Cannell up on the offer remains to be seen. But at least that's something. In the meantime, there's also a comic book and animated webisodes on the way, so Katt-style Ralph is far from finished.

And as an added bonus to you lucky goons in the states, the MTV link above contains a clip of Culp taking issue with Ralph being called a superhero.

If you squint your eyes just right and look at a photo of the late comedian Bill Hicks, he kind of resembles a young Russell Crowe (or vice versa). So, it would have been really cool if the Australian actor had played Hicks around ten years ago, when he was still in his 30s. But if we've learned anything from Kevin Spacey and Mike Myers (respectively, star of the Bobby Darin biopic Beyond the Sea and star of an upcoming Keith Moon biopic titled See Me Feel Me), you're never too old to play an icon who died young, and therefore we must accept the fact that at close to 50 years old, Crowe is likely to portray Hicks, who died from cancer at age 32. Fortunately for Crowe, he's good enough that it shouldn't be too hard to believe such a portrayal.

The Oscar-winning actor is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald saying he's involved with a Hicks bio, "which is going from treatment to draft stage with Kiwi writer Mark Staufer." Never mind that the quote doesn't sound like it was actually spoken by anyone, let alone Crowe, the article is mostly about how the actor is spending time with his family now that Ridley Scott's Nottingham has been postponed. Crowe also references other projects, including an unnamed documentary and the surfing gang movie My Brother's Keeper, based on the documentary Bra Boys, which Crowe narrated. Stuart Beattie, who co-wrote the doc, is currently working on a second draft of its adaptation.

As our Erik Davis reported over the weekend, Warner Bros and DC Comics are in the midst of rehashing their strategy, opting for the slow and steady route. But there's one franchise that has his "reinvention" movie, as it were: Superman. Word is, Warner Bros is utterly torn as to what to do with him.

Variety's Anne Thompson reports that the studio is really taking their time in deciding what to do, and how Bryan Singer will play into it. At this point, despite all the rumors and excited quotes from Singer, no one is working on a Superman script.

Surprisingly, they're with the majority of fans on this one, and feel that the movie didn't revive the character the way they wanted, or the way they know it can be done. (You really have changed things, Christopher Nolan.) Thompson was told that the studio is making the Man of Steel a top priority -- and if Singer is willing "to go in the right direction," they'll keep him, if not, he's off the property. One executive freely admitted that "it might be better to start from scratch."

Remember, Mark Millar and a "big name action director" who had connections at Warner Bros were readying themselves to make a Superman pitch. Millar claimed the world would know by December. Given that such sharks are circling, I won't be surprised if Warners does start from scratch. I'm as perplexed as anyone as to where Singer can go from Superman Returns. For a healthy franchise, they're going to have to reboot, and leave Returns in that misty category of a Donner long delayed sequel.

What do you think? Reboot or continue Singer's storyline?

The silliness continues! Vic Holtreman at ScreenRant has passed along a post (sent to them by a poster who's been a steady presence in the comment field on every Punisher: War Zone story -- hi, Nomad) that cinematographer Steve Gainer made on The Raw Board. Gainer is pretty fed up with all the rumors circulating, and insists that Lexi Alexander is not off the film, she's very much involved in the editing process, the film will not be PG-13, and that she did get married. Gainer writes, "When I hear vicious unfounded troll rumors like the "film was unwatchable" or "a total mess" it makes my blood boil. I want to punish the corrupt. People sit on their fat asses trolling the internet, people that have never even looked through a motion picture camera, and make judgements [sic] on a work of art that they've never seen, it's like saying a baby will be ugly before it is born, I can't freaking wait for this film to come out and prove the nay-sayers wrong."

While it's nice to have a rebuttal from someone legitimately associated with the film, none of it makes any sense -- except that someone seems to be fueling, and believing, the "any publicity is good publicity" angle. I still don't understand why, if everything is hunky dory behind the scenes, Alexander scrubbed all mention of the film from her blog, and has been cryptic ever since. Why haven't we had an official statement from her or anyone at Lionsgate? It seems to me that claims that you dumped your director warrant a "No, that's absolutely unfounded!"

I'm still rooting for the film, but I won't be helping to fuel the rumor machine any longer. I won't write another word on Punisher until it comes directly from Lionsgate or Alexander.

[via Ain't It Cool News]

Okay. I know that fandom usually leads to fanfic stories that center on a million different sexual scenarios, but what's with the Harry Potter nudity? If Ace Showbiz has it right, Daniel Radcliffe is stripping once again, but this time it isn't for a disturbing play about horses. It's for Harry Potter.

Yes, they report that the almost-20-year-old will strip down for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Radcliffe is quoted as saying: "At first I thought I'd have pants [underwear] on for the scene. Apparently not. But I've sort of done that before on stage. It's all old hat now, really."

Well, it may be old hat to him, but there are still many hordes of Harry fans who probably weren't expecting to see his ... you can guess where I'm going with this. Will audience be able to see a good bit of skin when all is said and done? That remains to be seen. While the films are getting darker, we all know that violence and darkness goes down a lot easier than some added skin, and this is still a kid-centric series.

Do you want to see Harry nude?

Well, we have some good news and some bad news to report during this glorious summer weekend. Which do you want first? Since I always pick the bad news first, we'll go with that: Apparently, Quentin Tarantino is having some trouble getting some of his potential Inglorious Bastards cast members to sign on the dotted line. Not only has David Krumholtz dropped out (and replaced by Samm Levine from Freaks and Geeks, so says AICN), but unfortunately the same has happened with Simon Pegg.

Over on his MySpace page, Pegg has told fans that he will no longer be co-starring in the Tarantino WWII flick, but will instead (and here's the good news) reunite with Nick Frost for a film called Paul (first reported wayyy back in September of 2007). This time, however, Edgar Wright will not be behind the camera, as Pegg said Superbad's Greg Mottola has taken over directing duties. Paul will follow two comic book geeks (Pegg and Frost) on some sort of road trip across America. No word yet on who'll be replacing Pegg in Bastards, though I can name more than a few Brits who'd do a bang-up job.

A few days ago it was confirmed that Steven Spielberg was putting The Trial of The Chicago 7 on the back burner to work on Tintin full-time. But despite earlier reports that Paul Greengrass had been chosen to take over, it looks like Chicago 7 is still without a director. According to CHUD, they contacted Greengrass and he confirmed that while he thinks it's a 'wonderful project,' and he had considered it; the timing just wasn't right -- and something tells me that a certain spy flick might have taken priority.

The trial of the so-called 'Chicago 7' (eight, if you want to be a stickler for details) was one of the defining moments of the 60's counterculture movement. During the '68 Democratic convention eight people (including the infamous Abbie Hoffman and Black Panther, Bobby Seale) were arrested for inciting a riot and conspiracy. The trial was recently made famous in the documentary, Chicago 10, and according to earlier reports, Sorkin's script is loosely based on Brett Morgen's animated doc.

Erik brought us some casting news earlier in the year, but it seems like nothing is written in stone when it comes to this movie. Spielberg has packed his slate for the coming year, but if I had to choose from his upcoming projects, I would have loved to see him tackle this story (not to mention getting his hands on an Aaron Sorkin script).

Sound off below on who you would like to see take the reigns for The Chicago 7, that is if it ever gets made...

Things have changed a lot since Jennifer Aniston starred in Leprechaun in 1993 -- Friends, tumultuous romances, and a whole non-horror career. But what if she went back to the fold?

During a discussion with MTV, Darren Lynn Bousman, the man behind Repo!, wishes he could follow the rainbow. "I would do Leprechaun in a second. If Lionsgate is listening, give me Leprechaun." But he wouldn't get too serious with the material if given the chance to reboot it: "It's just one of those fun popcorn movies. I would love to bring back the fun popcorn movie -- extreme violence, extreme absurdity -- but make it fun." His idea of fun -- the little bugger in the old west with gold and gun fights.

Personally, I think this could be great if they get Aniston back in on it, and just go wacky. How about you?

What's really going on over at Warner Bros. regarding their superhero properties? Is Justice League still moving forward? Has Christopher Nolan already signed on to direct a third Batman film? Will they attempt a move similar to what Marvel is doing and plot out solid solo flicks before combining worlds? Well, Variety recently spoke with Warners Chief Alan Horn, production prexy Jeff Robinov and Gregory Noveck, senior VP of creative affairs for DC Comics, and they brought back a few answers regarding all this fun stuff.

Firstly, a deal is officially on the table for Chris Nolan to (we assume) co-write and direct a third Batman film, however he hasn't made a decision yet. Horn said, "We have no idea where Chris is going with this. We haven't had any conversations with him about it." Hopefully an announcement on that front will arrive soon. With Justice League, Warners does eventually want to make it, but it definitely seems the early bad buzz from within the fanboy community is what put the breaks on this one.

Originally, it looked as if Warners was going to use JLA to launch solo efforts for a bunch of DC properties. Now, however, we're hearing a different tune. Horn notes they want to turn "the properties into viable movie product in an intelligent way so that we introduce them like planes on a runway. They have to be set up the right way and lined up the right way and all take off one at a time and fly safe and fly straight." So then what does this mean for the future of Justice League ... ?

Of all the freakin' horror remake outrages, this one might take the cake. Candyman, the freakishly original 'Chicago projects urban legend' flick based on a Clive Barker story, might be remade by Sony with a Caucasian in the title role, according to Shock Til You Drop. The site says that Sony and the unidentified rights holder are in "early talks," with one idea being to change Candyman's skin color from black to white.

I know this is not confirmed, and many stupid ideas are undoubtedly floated in early conversations, but this is wrong on so many levels I'm left speechless. At the most basic level, it begs the question: has anyone contemplating the remake actually watched Bernard Rose's frightening original? In the movie, Candyman (the great Tony Todd) was the son of a slave who "suffered a hideous and unjust death," as Ryan Stewart described in his Retro Cinema appreciation. An urban legend developed around him in the notorious crime-infested Cabrini-Green housing project: say his name multiple times in front of a mirror and he appears. Virginia Madsen, as a sociology grad student, investigates, calls him back to life, and wishes she had stayed in the classroom.

Two sequels, which I haven't seen, followed Candyman to New Orleans and Los Angeles, but Chicago is where he belongs. The Cabrini-Green high-rise projects have been torn down and redevelopment is taking place -- that's your story, the horror of modern redevelopment. If you want to add a political edge, tie in the outcome of the Presidential election. But please, Sony, don't make Candyman a Caucasian.