Kiefer Sutherland doing his Jack Bauer thing.

EW is reporting that a big screen version of the TV series is very possible. In fact, Billy Ray, who wrote last year’s “State of Play,” has apparently pitched an idea for the film to the studio, and now is in talks to officially sign on for the project.

There is a problem, though, in that the fate of the TV series is uncertain. Ratings are way down this year, and if the Fox network decides to end it, the series creators will want to work on a series finale. This doesn’t seem like a problem to me; isn’t every season ender for this show essentially a season finale, since the seasons are only loosely connected?

EW isn’t clear on whether a decision to end the series would favor a big screen version or not (of course, they may be implying something and I’m just not getting it). If they decide to cancel the show because of low ratings, they may decide that that’s a signal that it’s not worth investing money into making a movie from the show. Or they may think that a big screen version would be a cost effective way of continuing the franchise; a 24 film every other year probably might not cost as much as a season of TV episodes, and it is a known brand with a decent following. As Kiefer Sutherland said to EW, a TV series can act as a trailer for a film.

I stopped watching “24″ a few years ago, so I can’t comment on its viability as a TV series. As a stand alone action movie, it probably would hold up better than many other TV series to film translations. If Sutherland doesn’t demand huge money, it could be a good deal.

Can this man be saved? 

According to Deadline, Christopher Nolan is being asked by Warner Brothers to take charge of the development of a new “Superman” movie. Nolan would not direct, and will also continue to work on a third Batman movie, while helping to get the Man of Steel up and running on film. Again.

(The article, or at least the studio, uses  the word “mentor” to describe Nolan’s role, but that feels weird to me–it makes it sound like he’s overseeing a bunch of interns who are studying producing at film school. Or worse, like a neophyte director will be put in charge who will need to check in with Nolan before making any decisions. Collaboration and the exchange of ideas are important to the creative process, but if a director needs that kind of help, he/she is probaby the wrong person to be put in charge of a big budget blockbuster that is supposed to revive one of the most important characters in US 20th century pop culture. I’m just saying.)

The Deadline article has a pretty interesting history of the struggles to successfully get Superman back on film since the end of the late 1970s/early ’80s Christopher Reeve franchise. The last attempt, the 2006 “Superman Returns,” starring Brandon Routh and directed by Bryan Singer, wasn’t seen as awful, and wasn’t a major bust, but it simply wasn’t good enough or as successful as Warner Brothers believes a Superman movie could be, thus the latest effort to start over.

They also have to do something soon. The heirs of Superman creators Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster won a court case a few years ago that is going to eventually return the rights to the characters to them. I will quote to make sure I get this right:

“…if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Superman sequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half.”

After 2013, WB would have to try to work out a new deal with the estates, and that’s not a sure thing.

Anyway, Nolan obviously has won a lot of respect with his work on the Batman franchise, so I guess WB sees him as a savior. Can he do it? Can he create a truly original Superman universe, or will it just end up looking like another Batman movie with a different guy in tights? Will they be able to attract the right director if there’s a thought that the director would have to “report” to Nolan? Could be tough. Then again, like I said, Nolan has earned respect and latitude from the studio and industry, so it’s worth a shot.  

Most people would probably say Tim Robbins’s greatest role was in “The Shawshank Redemption.” 

I still can’t believe Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon broke up after all this time. If those two crazy kids can’t make it, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Luckily, Mr. Robbins can find solace in work. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Robbins has joined the cast of “The Green Lantern.” He’ll play Senator Hammond, the stern father of bad guy to be Dr. Hector Hammond, played by Peter Saarsgard. I’m not a Green Lantern expert. Does Hector become a bad guy because his dad is tough and disapproving? If so, that is rather impressively 1950s-ish psychology.

It feels like a long time since Robbins has done anything substantial (and this is probably a small part, too) on film. In 2008, he was in the barely-seen Iraq vet drama “The Lucky Ones,” but before that, his last good role was in “Mystic River,” in 2003. He never was a typical leading man type, but is a good enough actor that it seems like he should have done more. Unless he really hasn’t been looking; I know he produced a play off Broadway a few years ago. Anyway, good for Robbins. He gets a trip to New Orleans, where filming for “The Green Lantern” begins in March (oh, those Louisiana state tax breaks and incentives for filmmakers…).

“The Green Lantern” stars Ryan Reynolds as the main man in green. Blake Lively plays the love interest, and Martin Campbell gets to direct the whole thing.

“The Green Lantern”

It’s not that anyone expected *Avatar* to hold the No. 1 box-office spot forever. But I always thought the biggest movie moneymaker ever ($630 million domestic, $1.6 billion worldwide) would fall from grace after a studly battle, maybe with Scorsese’s *Shutter Island* on Feb. 19th. But nooo. After seven weeks on top, *Avatar* slunk off to No. 2 leaving the crown to — what? — *Dear John*! That’s right the chick flick about a soldier (Channing Tatum) who gets a Dear John letter from a girl (Amanda Seyfried) while he’s fighting in Iraq took in $32.4 million for the weekend, leaving *Avatar* with a not-even-close $23.6 million.

How did it happen? On Super Bowl weekend with guys thinking only football, the ladies seized the multiplex. The audience for *Dear John* was 84 percent female. And *Variety* reports that 64 percent of that audience was under 21. James Cameron’s epic rhapsody in blue has been taken down by, of all things, little girls!