The Official Brandon Routh Thread

[Kirok]

It's Pinky, it's Pinky and The Blur Blur Blur Blur...

[Jimbo]

NARF!

[Deleted]

My point, you fools, was that every single movie studio makes shitty movie and wants them to make money. Every one of them. I understand you single out WB because of the DC connection, but that doesn't make it different in my eyes just as they probably feel no different than any other studio simply because they do DC movies. I dunno. I guess that will make no sense to anyone so nevermind. Continue pitching about WB. Sorry to interrupt.

[Metallo]

Aug 6, 2010 15:04:21 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

Now, make me drink my milk

(SHOVES GLASS OF MILK DOWN METALLO'S FUCKING THROAT) ;D

And I'M the one that needs to calm down? Guess we know who the resident weirdo is.

[Metallo]

Aug 6, 2010 15:32:53 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

My point, you fools, was that every single movie studio makes shitty movie and wants them to make money. Every one of them. I understand you single out WB because of the DC connection, but that doesn't make it different in my eyes just as they probably feel no different than any other studio simply because they do DC movies. I dunno. I guess that will make no sense to anyone so nevermind. Continue pitching about WB. Sorry to interrupt.

I don't think anyone EXCUSED other studios from doing it on other films. We all know they do it and thats part of the problem with all of Hollywood. nothing wrong with making money but when the money clouds all other decisions the quality of the product can be affected. So again....what?



So these guys got to you huh?


We shall avenge you!

[stargazer01]

Aug 6, 2010 15:06:45 GMT -5 Kirok said:

It's Pinky, it's Pinky and The Blur Blur Blur Blur...

Please NO spam.

[Legsy]

[crazy_asian_man]

My point, you fools, was that every single movie studio makes shitty movie and wants them to make money. Every one of them. I understand you single out WB because of the DC connection, but that doesn't make it different in my eyes just as they probably feel no different than any other studio simply because they do DC movies. I dunno. I guess that will make no sense to anyone so nevermind. Continue pitching about WB. Sorry to interrupt.

I won't call anyone a fool, but I think everyone gets from the get-go that movie studios are there to make money first.

The frustration that I have with WB in particular is that they own the library to the DC comics characters- but don't seem to shepard it as well as, say, Marvel has done (for the most part) as Metallo pointed out.

Reeve was frustrated at Golan-Globus for not valuing the rights to do Superman movies more, by slashing the budget and not seeing the potential of what it had- (regardless of how one felt about the SIV script, the rights to do a Superman film with Reeve attached could have been a golden egg, rather than a golden turkey). It's kind of the same type of anger towards WB in particular- I doubt anyone thinks other studios are much better- (Sony Pictures and Spiderman for example), but WB is the only one who owns the future of Supes.

That's all I'm sayin.

[Metallo]

Preach it, CAM! You make great points.

WB owns the greatest superhero in the world and they can't seem to get their shit together. They own the greatest superhero team in the world...and they can't get it together there either. If the do it RIGHT they've make so much money they wouldn't know what to do with it. Look at Dark Knight.

[Kamdan]

You asked me to "make you." I obliged you. Also, why are you sending in Chris Hansen to deal with your obsession of having sex with children?
But yeah, let's cool off. I do hope that this new Superman project will restore the faith back into the character. People I know won't shut up about why the character is dumb, but I have to keep telling them about what great potential there is, but when you have stuff like Superman Returns to show for it, it is difficult.

[Metallo]

I didn't ask you I dared you. And you probably need too see Chris Hanson if you enjoy shoving things down peoples throats. But anybody can have the balls on the internet that they'd never have in real life now can't they?

[stargazer01]

People I know won't shut up about why the character is dumb, but I have to keep telling them about what great potential there is, but when you have stuff like Superman Returns to show for it, it is difficult.

Or maybe those people just aren't smart enough to get it..



Great pic from the San Francisco press tour,



Awesome Superman pose! We need a manip here.



An encounter with a fan,

Chiseled, approachable and bookish, Routh is a Heartthrob for the eclectic masses.

mrwillw.blogspot.com/2010/08/brandon-routh-in-toronto-for-scott_07.html

[Legsy]

Brandon doing his Clarkie thing.

EDITED: I hate side-scrolling!

[Kirok]

On his best behaviour, he returned to his Hotel at an early hour while many of his co-stars were out on the town indulging.

Good for you, Brandon. My pro-Welling stance aside, Routh really is a good custodian of the character (and not because of this ONE reference, he has a track record of being straight laced). Not that Welling isn't; by all accounts he's a good guy too, he's just very private and keeps out of the spotlight. And in this day and age, who can blame him? We're fortunate to never hear any stories about these guys drunk driving, living it up at clubs, fathering children out of wedlock, assaulting people, etc. Just look at what all the Batman fans had to deal with last year...

[Legsy]

That Chris Reeve fathered two childrens (Bushism) out of wedlock.

[Kirok]

I know.



Doesn't make him a bad guy, but still not the kind of of example you want to be setting if you're seen as Superman to most of the world (in particular, kids). Of course maybe I'm just too old fashioned...

[Legsy]

;D

I'm an old fashion kinda guy meself.

[stargazer01]

Brandon will attend Dragon*Con this year! More details here:

www.dragoncon.org/index.php

[Scissorpuppy]

Routh seems to be working hard at getting back into the public eye. Perhaps he thinks it may help his chances at staying in the superman role. My personal choice would be for routh to keep the role, I just feel that if they are going to recast they shouldn't replace him with someone who fits the same mold.

[Kirok]

Aug 8, 2010 17:47:29 GMT -5 Scissorpuppy said:

I just feel that if they are going to recast they shouldn't replace him with someone who fits the same mold.

But if not his mold then who's? He's a great fit for the part and there's a lot of the character inherently in him, so doing something different just to be different would be a disservice to the character.

I suppose the alternate approach you may be suggesting is a George Reeves type, which someone like Hamm would fill. Other than Patrick Warburton, who is too old and too much a parody of himself these days, is there anyone else would fit the criteria?

[Scissorpuppy]

Aug 8, 2010 20:35:41 GMT -5 Kirok said:

But if not his mold then who's? He's a great fit for the part and there's a lot of the character inherently in him, so doing something different just to be different would be a disservice to the character.

I suppose the alternate approach you may be suggesting is a George Reeves type, which someone like Hamm would fill. Other than Patrick Warburton, who is too old and too much a parody of himself these days, is there anyone else would fit the criteria?

As much as I love Routh in the role, if Nolan's new film(s) take a certain route (Complete reboot) recasting the role is understandable. The "what happened to the kid?" factor alone holds him back, The "vague" history that ties Reeve/Returns/Routh also hinders Routh. The thing is, if they want to create a whole new world for Superman, they don't want anyone thinking of the previous versions, they want you watching/thinking of their film. They also don't want to be tied down by whatever storylines have come before it. So recasting someone new helps distance the new series from the old. My point is, Don't recast the role with someone who looks/acts like Routh or even reminds you of Routh. It would be pointless, might as well let Routh keep the job.

Casting someone like Hamm would bring a rougher edge to the character in looks alone. Hamm also is well known, but he isn't a mega star (yet). I like the guy, but I'm sure there is probably someone out there who could do just as good of a job if not better. But of all the Hollywood stars out there, if it has to be a "Name" Hamm has my vote.

[Metallo]

Aug 8, 2010 20:35:41 GMT -5 Kirok said:

Aug 8, 2010 17:47:29 GMT -5 Scissorpuppy said:

I just feel that if they are going to recast they shouldn't replace him with someone who fits the same mold.

But if not his mold then who's? He's a great fit for the part and there's a lot of the character inherently in him, so doing something different just to be different would be a disservice to the character.

I suppose the alternate approach you may be suggesting is a George Reeves type, which someone like Hamm would fill. Other than Patrick Warburton, who is too old and too much a parody of himself these days, is there anyone else would fit the criteria?

Considering how Nolan approached the Bruce Wayne/Batman personality balancing act and his idea of how this type of thing should work Routh's take on Supeman would make far more sense than the George Reeves take on Superman/Clark Kent. Maybe not as nerdy but there's certainly goign to have to be more contrast between the two characters than what Reeves or Cain did.

Nolan and Singer basically had the same idea on the many personas that Batman and Superman play in different aspects of their lives. Basically 3 or more sides of one character. Mild mannered nerd Clark basically equaled disinterested spoiled playboy Bruce as far as the "act" put on for the public.

If any version of Superman could fit with Nolan's Batman it would be Singers more than anyone elses. Maybe even Donners.

This whole thing makes me think even more about the rumored Superman cameo in Green Lantern. How is that even goign to work? Routh? Welling? Someone else? Something so vague and generalized that it could be any past or future version?

[Kirok]

Aug 8, 2010 23:38:05 GMT -5 Metallo said:

This whole thing makes me think even more about the rumored Superman cameo in Green Lantern. How is that even goign to work? Routh? Welling? Someone else? Something so vague and generalized that it could be any past or future version?

I'm pretty sure I read they scrapped that, which is fine by me. Not only for the reason you cited, but for the first superhero crossover in DC film history a Superman cameo in a Green Lantern film is extremely lame. Give us World's Finest, give us Justice League, give us Dark Knight Returns. Why tease something like that when nothing will ever come of it? At least Marvel's post-credits cameos are building towards the Avengers. What would even be the point of showing Superman in Green Lantern? And yes, I know the rumored scene was the ring looking over Clark Kent as possible successor. My opinion sill stands.

[crazy_asian_man]

As much as I love Routh in the role, if Nolan's new film(s) take a certain route (Complete reboot) recasting the role is understandable. The "what happened to the kid?" factor alone holds him back, The "vague" history that ties Reeve/Returns/Routh also hinders Routh. The thing is, if they want to create a whole new world for Superman, they don't want anyone thinking of the previous versions, they want you watching/thinking of their film. They also don't want to be tied down by whatever storylines have come before it. So recasting someone new helps distance the new series from the old. My point is, Don't recast the role with someone who looks/acts like Routh or even reminds you of Routh. It would be pointless, might as well let Routh keep the job.

I agree with this. It's sort of saying: "If it ain't broken, DON'T fix it.... unless you're making something completely and totally different."

And that's the thing..... if Nolan is making something completely different, off the charts- then.... will it alienate the people who paid $391 million dollars plus worldwide to see Superman Returns/Routh in it?

That money had to come from repeat business somehow, somewhere.

I wonder (1) what is the stated budget allowed by WB for Nolan's Superman - (2) what is the amount that it has to make for it to be considered NOT a disappointment?

If it ends up (by the accountants) as costing the same as SR, and makes $391 million- what then?

Is it a failure or a disappointment?

And if so, would they figure that Routh's presence/absence added to it?
Again, can't help but wonder how things are being spun or figured out in that private WB boardroom over this whole situation.....

[Metallo]

Aug 9, 2010 0:13:55 GMT -5 Kirok said:

Aug 8, 2010 23:38:05 GMT -5 Metallo said:

This whole thing makes me think even more about the rumored Superman cameo in Green Lantern. How is that even goign to work? Routh? Welling? Someone else? Something so vague and generalized that it could be any past or future version?

I'm pretty sure I read they scrapped that, which is fine by me. Not only for the reason you cited, but for the first superhero crossover in DC film history a Superman cameo in a Green Lantern film is extremely lame. Give us World's Finest, give us Justice League, give us Dark Knight Returns. Why tease something like that when nothing will ever come of it? At least Marvel's post-credits cameos are building towards the Avengers. What would even be the point of showing Superman in Green Lantern? And yes, I know the rumored scene was the ring looking over Clark Kent as possible successor. My opinion sill stands.

I think think it would a have been fine to keep in if was something that would pay off later but otherwise it would have been a stunt just for the sale of a stunt that would take some people out of the movie and not be an organic part of the film.

Its even ok to do as something fun but meaningless as an easter egg, like The Punishers often rumored cameo in Spider-man 2 (which I've read different stories on saying it was a true cameo on purpose and other saying it was mere coincidence). But for something as big as Superman showing up in a GL movie its got to be just right and I don't think chances were good of this being just right.

More than anything it just wouldn't have made sense right now because they could end up using a Superman that Nolan doesn't want to use in his movie or WB would force this actor on Nolan (doubtful but possible). And if they used Routh or Welling chances are they wouldn't be Superman at a later date...and it would just be pointless to use that to build up anything for later.