Nov 10, 2009
A-ten-hut! Eyes front and center Privates! Sgt. Rock is finally seeing some action on the big-screen but he's somehow managed to get lost in the time-stream along the way. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film will not be taking place during World War II. Now, I'm no Sgt. Rock expert but isn't that like, oh I don't know, the entire point of the character?
DC, Warner Bros. and producer Joel Silver have been sitting on this one for a while. At separate times throughout the years, Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to star as Sgt. Rock and Guy Ritchie was set to direct. Ritchie has since moved onto Lobo and Schwarzenegger has since become the Governator. Akiva Goldsman will now produce along with Silver, Francis Lawrence directing and Chad St. John writing the script.
Silver originally wanted the film to take place in WWII, so what changed? "A big budget always was an obstacle and, '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,'" says THR, "The studio hopes moving the time period to the future solves the dilemma." I have no idea if by "future" they mean now, or 2139.
Gregory Noveck will be overseeing the project for DC and while St. John is rather new to the scene, both Goldman and Lawrence have been around the block. The two worked on another comic adaptation, Constantine, as well as I Am Legend.
Comic properties are a hot commodity these days but is there really a point in making Sgt. Rock if it's not set during WWII? That would be like making a Batman film set in the 1600s. Wait...actually, I'd pay to see that.