|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 1, 2010 16:40:18 GMT -5
Well I have seen Cera in only one movie (Superbad) and he seemed fine there to me, so I guess I'm still not tired of him? ;D Of course this movie is a must watch for me (duh!  ), but so far from what I have seen and heard about it, it sounds like it's a VERY entertaining and fun movie. And very original, which is rare nowdays in Hollywood. And yes, Brandon is in it, so I hope it does really, really well!  The movie is getting rave reviews so far. Most people who have seen it are praising it highly (including Brandon's performance, yay!). The online community clearly loves it. I just hope that general audiences give it a chance, because the movie does look.. different. ;D Here are a couple of very representative reviews I think: www.thewrap.com/movies/blog-post/review-scott-pilgrim-vs-world-19490 chud.com/articles/articles/24636/1/REVIEW-SCOTT-PILGRIM-VS-THE-WORLD/Page1.html. |
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Aug 3, 2010 23:43:32 GMT -5
One of my fanboy dreams is a Dark Knight Returns film with Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, etc. If such a film were to come to pass (and if so then they better hurry), Routh would be the only logical stand-in for Reeve as Superman since he's essentially playing him in SR. And his youth in comparison to the rest of the cast is perfect for the ageless Man of Steel. Just a thought I don't think I've mentioned before, but I'm sure it's crossed some of your minds as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 4, 2010 9:32:18 GMT -5
Interesting idea--- Though the part of Superman being ageless- I never got that he didn't age, but given his particular set of circumstances (a Kryptonian physiology born and raised in a completely different environment on Earth)- who knows if he was supposed to have a different biology than the rest of the Kryptonians just from that alone?
Hm...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 4, 2010 12:48:47 GMT -5
There's bee a lot of takes on Superman's aging. In some stories he doesn't really agr at all while in ohters he does its just slowly. Sometimes his aging is superficial (liek gray hair) and he's an otherwise robust and vital looking guy even when he's past 50.
Personally I like the idea that he ages but its very slowly and his body doesn't really break down from age.
Kingdom Come and Batman Beyond went that way with it. Lois & Clark seemed to imply that he was damn near immortal or at least would show very little effects from aging even for centuries.
|
|
Knight
New Member
@Knighty80
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Knight on Aug 4, 2010 19:32:32 GMT -5
Looking back over the last few pages on this thread and to see new pictures and video clips Routh is excellent.
I agree with what you guys are saying 100%
WB need to stop dicking about and get it right.
Routh is the man.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 4, 2010 20:33:04 GMT -5
To them right right now is to do whatever Nolan says apparently...  IMO, due to Nolan's Ego and WB's Stupidity Brandon will not be back to reprise a role that belongs to him.  I hate WB! Any ways... here is a nice article on Scott Pilgrim. Loved this part,  O'Malley is impressed with Wright's sense for casting. "I think that's one of Edgar’s gifts, one of his many gifts. He just has this eye for it. When he said that he wanted Chris Evans and Brandon Routh for the movie, I was like, 'That’s not going to happen.' And then it totally happened. It was dream casting all around," he said.
"I remember when Brandon Routh walked in for a casting meeting and I was sitting there with Edgar," added Bacall. "He walked in and he was standing there in front of us, and I kind of looked at Edgar, and I wanted to say it but I didn't, but in my mind I said it. And what I said was, 'Holy shit, it's Superman!'"www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=27626#The guy perfectly embodies everything about the character, most people see it. Why Can't WB/Nolan see it too?? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 4, 2010 22:42:44 GMT -5
Hard to say what Nolan really wants, and whether or not WB wants to give him ANYTHING/EVERYTHING he wants or not.
Still-- as far as who to blame-
If WB really wanted Routh no matter what, they could have found a way to extend his contract- or renegotiate it, but letting it slip- far as I know, which unfortunately isn't that far with this--- might be WB and WB's mistake alone.
Haveta wait and see what Nolan decides....*sigh*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2010 3:26:11 GMT -5
Brandon Routh ain't the only actor on the planet who can be an amazing Superman.
He was an unknown, remember?
The next one could be better than Routh. You never know.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 5, 2010 4:56:42 GMT -5
Agreed.
It doesn't "belong" to him either; its an enormous privilege to have that part; Routh himself would agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 5, 2010 9:54:35 GMT -5
Personally, I am skeptical---- It's the odds that are so astronomical, and it's just extremely foolish to fix what's not broken. As an example, we're already tossing out ideas of recasting, and nobody is agreeing on that.
Also...
Why not get a new costume as well if we get a new actor that most accept? It could be better, if we have an open mind. So, it's a slippery slope.
And for my own op, it's not blind allegiance to Routh, (or Singer) either.
As much as I trusted Singer, I found myself nervous about whether or not I could accept the 'new' choice for Superman, given how, growing up with Reeve's Superman I knew would have an influence.
A few seconds in, with Routh talking, it was as if Reeve inhabited his body. GIANT sigh of relief.
It's not that another actor couldn't portray a good Superman, but this type of thought was what brought Val Kilmer and George Clooney to the Batman movies..... and I have yet to find anyone who thought recasting each time around added anything really good to that series.
If the actor is dead/ refuses to come back/ is too old/ etc.- that'd be one thing.
Personally, I think it's all down to whether or not Nolan is adamant about casting Routh when it's time (maybe he really is open to everything and DOESN'T have a solid choice either way right now)- and how much resistance WB would have to it.
If Nolan is only 50/50 on Routh vs. another actor- then we'll see... the dream originally for me would have been SInger/ROuth finishing MOS, but the alternate is Routh being part of this new franchise.
Given what was said at Comicon, Routh doesn't sound like he's gotten absolute word that he's out, right?
Everything about the new direction was a mystery until Nolan was officially confirmed as producer. Unless there's word Routh is officially out... will stay on this course of denial that he's being replaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by supes78 on Aug 5, 2010 10:50:02 GMT -5
Here's an Entertainment Weekly article making a case for Routh's return to the cape. popwatch.ew.com/2010/08/03/brandon-routh-as-superman-again-why-not/Brandon Routh as Superman again? Why not?by Darren Franich it comes to superhero movies, there are three truisms: 1) One good villain is worth more than three bad ones. 2) The sequel is usually better, but the threequel is always worse. 3) Superman Returns was a major disappointment. It’s not as if Bryan Singer’s movie did poorly at the box-office – it made a little less than $400 million worldwide, which is more than any of your movies made in 2006 unless your name is Brett Ratner – but the film has accumulated a serious stink around it, probably only behind Ang Lee’s Hulk on the list of “Films Fanboys Hate.” Brandon Routh just spoke to Empire about the mysterious new Superman reboot currently being conceived by those irascible Nolan brothers. Routh amenably said, “I would love the opportunity to be back…we’ll see what Chris and Warner Bros. has to say about it.” It’s a good bet that the Brothers Nolan won’t ask him back. (Christopher Nolan has yet to return EW’s calls for comment.) They want to leave their own mark on the franchise – these are the same guys who made a Batman movie without a Batcave. And That’s totally cool. But PopWatchers, it’s time to take a second look at Superman Returns. Especially when superhero movies are starting to feel a bit samey-samey, Superman Returns is looking like more of an eccentric curiosity: a superhero movie that seems utterly uninterested in being a superhero movie. (Read Owen Gleiberman’s review here: He gave it a B!) Everyone knows that Bryan Singer set out to make an homage to the original Superman movies; hence the deployment of John Williams’ jaunty 1978 score, and the zombie digitization of the late Marlon Brando as Jor-El. That makes Superman Returns a dollhouse recreation of a ’70s movie that was already a ’30s pastiche. That’s a lot of retro for one movie. When you throw in Routh, who eerily plays Christopher Reeve playing Superman playing Clark Kent, Superman Returns feels more like a missing chapter from Grindhouse than a movie with a fast-food tie-in. I’m not saying the film is perfect. Kate Bosworth is miscast as Lois Lane. Practically nothing happens in the middle of the movie. But the more you watch Superman Returns (and it seems to be on TV constantly), some of the film’s flaws start to seem appealingly gonzo. James Marsden plays a character whose only purpose is to be the coolest man alive – people, he owns a prop plane. And Lex Luthor’s henchman are so stupid, they might as well be carrying bags imprinted with dollar signs. Okay, (SPOILER ALERT) the whole Super-Baby subplot is bananas, but it’s actually a little bit bracing to see such a strenuously anti-canonical plot twist in a superhero movie. Especially when films like Iron Man 2 and Watchmen seem hermetically sealed in their attempts to stay “faithful,” it’s pretty darn cool that Singer just decided to really go for it. Superman and Lois Lane had sex! Without protection! And now he’s a deadbeat dad! And she still doesn’t know he’s Clark Kent. It’s like a Kevin Smith riff come to life. What do you think, PopWatchers? Am I crazy to love Superman Returns just a little? Do you think Routh should get a second go-round with the last son of Krypton? Is John Williams’ Superman score better than his Star Wars score? Sound off below! |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 5, 2010 11:28:32 GMT -5
Great post, CAM, I agree. Why try to fix what's not broken? Sounds pretty arrogant to me. I seriously doubt they will find someone better and more suited for the role in this generation. Superman is a very tricky character to cast, but Singer found the right guy. When they keep changing the actors, like you said, the movies just lose something very special and the magic is gone, especially with Supes, imo. Also, here is a REALLY nice interview with Brandon and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (I think she could make a good WW. She's very tall and gorgeous). They ask him about Superman and a sequel too, www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/entertainment/movies/brandon-routh-mary-elizabeth-winstead-visit-fox-2-20100805-mrAnd another shorter and funny interview, ;D www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-8-5-watch-scott-pilgrim-s-brandon-routh-talks-going-from-superhero-to-rock-star |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 5, 2010 11:41:02 GMT -5
When I see the new movie, I want to think about Superman, not Reeve.
If they pull that off with or without Routh then I'm sold. Routh needs to get his own identity and not copy what was done 30 years ago.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 12:18:58 GMT -5
Agreed. It doesn't "belong" to him either; its an enormous privilege to have that part; Routh himself would agree. It doesn't belong to him but he did a good enough job to deserve better than to be made the scapegoat for WB's own ineptitude. Stuff like that has already happened enough in the Superman series and nothing good ever came of it. Routh wasn't the problem with SR but he's one of many people left holding the bag while WB has never really stepped up and admitted their failure. Jon Peters was like cancer on the franchise for 13 years but WB never got rid of him. Brandon Routh ain't the only actor on the planet who can be an amazing Superman. He was an unknown, remember? The next one could be better than Routh. You never know. Could be...or he could be worse. For every Lynda Carter (Wonder Woman), Gerard Christopher (Superboy), Dina Meyer (Batgirl), or Mark Lindsay Chapman (Anton Arcane) that turn up as replacements you can get a George Clooney (Batman), Justin Whalin (Jimmy Olsen), Kenny Johnson (Flash), or Kristen Kruek (Lana Lang). Some good and some not so good but a lot of people feel they weren't up to snuff. Would Lois & Clark have been more interesting with Landes or Whalin going forward? Landes got bounced because of some bullshit excuse too. HOPING something is going to be better won't make it so, especially since we have no say in the matter whatsoever. At this stage in the game its up to WB to prove it to people. They aren't entitled to the audiences hard earned dollar. They have to convince them to spend it. A lot of people didn't care for SR so much like the Hulk situation those people aren't going to have the highest of expectations unless WB shows them somthing to change their minds. Until then..eh. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 12:29:40 GMT -5
When I see the new movie, I want to think about Superman, not Reeve. If they pull that off with or without Routh then I'm sold. Routh needs to get his own identity and not copy what was done 30 years ago. The same way a Superman movie needs to have its own identity and not try to copy batman...but WB have admitted thats what they want in a lot of ways. I didn't see Routh as a copy of Reeve, not exactly. Reeve's Superman had far more faith and optimism. Routh's Superman is introspective and doubting his place in the world...which is a REAL criticism many people have had with Superman for decades. So it was only right for Singer to explore the character in that regard. Compare Clark's situation in SII when Rocky and those thugs whip his ass. His reaction is of sheer disbelief. Compare it to Superman's reaction to the beating he took on Luthors Kryptonite island. Sheer disbelief. But Reeve and Routh played those scenes totally different even though both knew they were powerless. Now you can judge the quality till the cows come home but Routh was clearly doing his own thing there. It didn't really remind me of anything Reeve did. The movie has plenty of that. The biggest reason Routh gets compared to Reeve so much is his looks. Otherwise a lot of the qualities Routh is said too have copied from Reeve are actually already intrinsic to Superman/Clark Kent as a character. Is Bale Copying Keaton buy using a similar approach of disguise as Batman in terms of changing his voice an body language? Kilmer and Clooney didn't use a body language like Keaton but Bale did. That doesn't mean its a copy. It just means both understood there was more to the character and the performance than just standing around. Much like Reeve and Routh Keaton and bale are drawing from the same source so there are bound to be SOME similarities. There's definite influences of Reeve on Routh but considering SR was a loose sequel to STM why shouldn't Routh have some flourishes of Reeve in there? I think Routh did a good job looking at it from both sides. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 12:30:34 GMT -5
Personally, I am skeptical---- It's the odds that are so astronomical, and it's just extremely foolish to fix what's not broken. As an example, we're already tossing out ideas of recasting, and nobody is agreeing on that. Also... Why not get a new costume as well if we get a new actor that most accept? It could be better, if we have an open mind. So, it's a slippery slope. And for my own op, it's not blind allegiance to Routh, (or Singer) either. As much as I trusted Singer, I found myself nervous about whether or not I could accept the 'new' choice for Superman, given how, growing up with Reeve's Superman I knew would have an influence. A few seconds in, with Routh talking, it was as if Reeve inhabited his body. GIANT sigh of relief. It's not that another actor couldn't portray a good Superman, but this type of thought was what brought Val Kilmer and George Clooney to the Batman movies..... and I have yet to find anyone who thought recasting each time around added anything really good to that series. If the actor is dead/ refuses to come back/ is too old/ etc.- that'd be one thing. Personally, I think it's all down to whether or not Nolan is adamant about casting Routh when it's time (maybe he really is open to everything and DOESN'T have a solid choice either way right now)- and how much resistance WB would have to it. If Nolan is only 50/50 on Routh vs. another actor- then we'll see... the dream originally for me would have been SInger/ROuth finishing MOS, but the alternate is Routh being part of this new franchise. Given what was said at Comicon, Routh doesn't sound like he's gotten absolute word that he's out, right? Everything about the new direction was a mystery until Nolan was officially confirmed as producer. Unless there's word Routh is officially out... will stay on this course of denial that he's being replaced. I agree. If it aint broke don't fix it. WB lucked out when they got a Superman that really hit all the most important marks. The odds are that they aren't going to knock it out of the part everytime they are cast. Thats just simple numbers. Whenever WB has offered the role of Superman too someone over the last 15 years most of the time they didn't fit nearly as wel as Routh. I'm sorry but DJ Cotrona just wasn't the right pick for Superman. Neither was Cage. Cage is a good actor but it just didn't feel right from the jump. The only thing that gives me hope is Nolan's involvement. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 12:38:01 GMT -5
Hard to say what Nolan really wants, and whether or not WB wants to give him ANYTHING/EVERYTHING he wants or not. Still-- as far as who to blame- If WB really wanted Routh no matter what, they could have found a way to extend his contract- or renegotiate it, but letting it slip- far as I know, which unfortunately isn't that far with this--- might be WB and WB's mistake alone. Haveta wait and see what Nolan decides....*sigh* I think Nolan can do great things with Superman but it shows a lack of creativity on WB's part that they feel the need to go with him. They did the same thing going to Singer and in the end they felt it wasn't worth it. Nolans a master but WB seems heckbent of putting DC's entire cinematic future in his hands at times. And as great as the guy is DC will never be able to be fully explored to its fullest potential on the silver screen. World's Finest? You'll probably never see it with Nolan as "The Godfather." He's admitted as much by saying he's against the idea. People complain that they don't want to see The Reeve films rehashed on film but they are fine with Nolan restricting a totally unexplored film concept from being attempted? If they want something new that would certainly be new. Give me a filmmaker with an open mind to the possibilities. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 5, 2010 12:43:37 GMT -5
I disagree. Look how George Reeve played the role - nothing like Reeve - yet he was so effective cos he was a brilliant actor.
Its like Lazenby trying to do Connery; Moore got it right by immediately establishing his own unique interpretation of Bond, who like Superman, originated off the page and not a specific film.
Routh looks far too much like Reeve, plus his CK mannerisms were almost identical to STM. We need to focus on the original character and not an actor who played him 30 fucking years ago. By the end of the 70s, Moore WAS Bond, yet WB hires a Reeve clone
If WB are going to use Batman as a template as the new Superman film then we might as well give up all hope right now.
I am not going to compare Reeve and Routh's beating scenes because I have zero interest in doing so; it's now been nearly 4 years since I've seen Routh's and unlikely I will ever watch that scene again.
I don't see how Routh has been made a scape goat either. What about the rest of the production staff who would have been involved in a SR sequel?
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Aug 5, 2010 12:50:52 GMT -5
The article states that Nolan’s office had no comment.
"No Comment" is actually a good thing. At least they haven't flat out told us no.
At the same time, I totally agree with Kevin and Russ. There maybe another guy out there that can do a great job as both Clark/Supes. We just have to keep an open mind. We need to put away our "Routh Goggles".
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 5, 2010 12:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 13:12:35 GMT -5
I disagree. Look how George Reeve played the role - nothing like Reeve - yet he was so effective cos he was a brilliant actor. Dean Cain also played it nothing like Reeve and at times he was terrible. George Reeves was playing a Superman that had nothing to do with Chris Reeve's Brandon Routh was playing a Superman that was connected to Chris Reeves. Reeves had PLENTY of qualities in common with Reeve but that was because they're both drawing from the same basic source. Thats the point I tried to make that you apparently ignored. Gerard Christopher has admitted he DID pattern his Superman on Christopher Reeve and a lot of people feel he did a pretty good job. but I never said anyone should COPY anyone else and Routh wasn't a carbon copy of Reeve. Do you just not read anything I ever say and just assume or what? Lazenby's biggest problem was that he wasn't an experienced actor in OHMSS. Moore's approach worked for him but more than anything it was because he KNEW he could never be Connery. George Clooney played Batman different from Keaton and Kilmer and he was GOD AWFUL. Its not just about being different its about being GOOD. Plenty of artists have drawn Superman the way Routh looks. How can he look to much like Reeve when the argument could be made he also looks just like Superman. Its far more important that he looks like Superman than any side effect of him happening to look like Reeve. Routh isn't an EXACT duplicate of Reeve. Thats a clone. They look similar but there are also differences. I can name people that look far more like Reeve, whose looks are of more in line with traditionally Engish and French ancestry than Rouths. What is worse: to have a guy that looks kind of like Reeve AND looks like Superman or to have a guy like Dean Cain who really doesn't look much like Superman? And if you are so hung up on Routh looking likle Reeve why haven't I seen you complain about how much Christopher and Newton looked like Reeve, because they clearly did. Like I said SR is a loose sequel to STM so why shouldn't people have a Superman that reminds them of the old one in some ways considering the continuity that is touched on in SR? Moore's Bond films were never as connected to the previous Connery films as SR was to STM save for returning actors. Actual references were were far more fleeting and the TONE was very different. The tone of SR had a lot more in common with STM. Thats what they want. They basically said they want to copy what the Dark Knight did and go as dark as possible as far as the material will allow. I don't think Nolan wants to do that but WB's made their opinion pretty clear. How can you say Routh is copying Reeve if you aren't going to actually LOOK at all of what they did?  The ones that did good work shouldn't be rewarded by being shown the door. Until WB takes their share of the blame instead of saying Superman didn't do this and that for whatever reason they are laying a lot of the blame solely on the film....even though THEY had control of the development of the film and its budget. They hired the director, the producers, etc. What was so WRONG with Routh that he has to be replaced? WB still hasn't explained that. Routh wasn't the problem with SR. The problem was a in its tone not being consistent and focusing to much on the serious and angsty. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 5, 2010 13:18:58 GMT -5
What was so WRONG with Routh that he has to be replaced? WB still hasn't explained that. Even if they did, it would be some bullshit excuse like when Marvel fired Ed Norton. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 13:35:30 GMT -5
What was so WRONG with Routh that he has to be replaced? WB still hasn't explained that. Even if they did, it would be some bullshit excuse like when Marvel fired Ed Norton. Its a symptom of the same problem. You've got studios who can't admit their own errors and instead of trying to find out what went wrong and fix whats there they throw EVERYTHING out and hope it'll be ok next go around even though they still haven''t fixed their problem. Keven Feige deserved every boo he got at Comic Con by handling this Norton situation in public like such a dick. If Paramount thought the same way about Star Trek in 1980 we NEVER would have gotten Star Trek II. They didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Studios aren't creative or interested enough in doing that anymore. When Live and Let Die didn't quite hit the mark EON kept trying until they got something that worked better with The Spy Who Loved Me. They didn't fire Moore and reboot the whole thing. When Moonraker turned into a farce that a lot of people didn't care for did they fire Moore? No. They came back and fixed it with the next one. Singer and SR aren't the reason every DC comics movie WB has produced in the last 13 years (except for the Nolan Batman films) have been shit or mediocre. WB has no clue why Nolan's films are successful creatively. Catwoman was a festering pile of garbage and WB needs to start sniffing around their own house to see where the garbage came from. Singers already shown he can ramp things up and improve with a sequel but WB's sole reason for doing what they are doing is MONEY. Yes its a business but making a GOOD Superman film is a byproduct to them when the two things should be much more balanced out. WB could crap out another Superman IV but as long as it makes money they really don't care if its bad. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,035
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2010 16:07:56 GMT -5
As I think about it what I said in the Marvel thread about Avengers and World's Finest applies to Superman too. For Singer to do the story he wanted to do with an established Superman who disappears and comes back years later to a different world the audience had to have a Superman they had invested in and a Superman they had some history with.
SR was trying to be that kind of story as well as the kickoff of a new series. And The Reeve movie series was the truest and most classical live action presentation of Superman outside of comics in the last 25 years. It was the one that stuck closest to the status quo and was the most logical choice to use. Thats why Singer wanted someone like Routh who could evoke some of the same basic feelings and memories in people that Christopher Reeve could while at the same time not being an exact copy.
It was the very problem with Batman vs Superman...a movie that was according to the script going to be somewhat established in The Burton Bat universe with the particular version of Superman being more vague (with the Reeve or Cain versions being equally as possible as candidates). But how can you rely SO heavily on the history of the Keaton Batman when you have someone thats the total opposite of Keaton?
When Batman Forever tried that it fell kind of flat despite Val giving a good solid performance in a particular scene. When Val Kilmer's Bruce was reminding Robin of how his parents died and how revenge against a specific person wouldn't make the pain go away it wasn't nearly as powerful as it would have been if Michael Keaton had been the one to deliver those words to Chris O'Donnell.
It'll probably be the same way when Nick Fury or Tony Stark confront Bruce Banner about whatever in the Avengers.
When Robert Burke took over for Peter Weller as Robocop in RC3 the first movie was always heavily referenced in some way and Burke didn't try to copy Weller. Burke gave a much softer and more quite performance at times whereas Weller was bolder in his choices at times and simply relied much more heavily on body language. But Burke and Robocop III fell flat and most people think that didn't matter.
Why? They wanted Peter Weller and Burke just wasn't as GOOD. Its not just about being different but about the TALENT and the quality and whether its there or not. Granted I think Burke would have done better if he had had the same quality material and directors that Weller did but Weller did a very specific thing.
IF SR wasn't so tied to STM (even if its just in tone and vague references) I'd agree that trying to do something in line with Reeve would be the wrong thing to do but to go in the totally opposite direction wasn't the answer either.
Superman and his situation in the movie worked on another level. It mirrored the situation the fictional Superman and the movie franchise faced in the real world which was an interesting approach.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 5, 2010 17:44:39 GMT -5
Probably because we're not discussing a 20 year old TV show that most people don't even remember.
|
|
), but so far from what I have seen and heard about it, it sounds like it's a VERY entertaining and fun movie. And very original, which is rare nowdays in Hollywood. And yes, Brandon is in it, so I hope it does really, really well! 
IMO, due to Nolan's Ego and WB's Stupidity Brandon will not be back to reprise a role that belongs to him. 
I hate WB!
