|
|
Post by inebriated87 on Dec 6, 2010 7:24:23 GMT -5
At 3:03 (final vid) he mentions his peak weight after training, when SR was in production.
It's the same weight Superman tells Lois in the interview scene in STM !
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 7, 2010 13:16:30 GMT -5
 Some love for Brandon from comicbook writer Mark Millar.. @adamingleby Brandon Routh is a really good actor tho. He's fantastic in Scott Pilgrim. His comic timing is really great too.
@adamingleby Brandon Routh was brilliant, esp his Clark Kent after terrible TV guys for 2 decades. But a reboot would mean a new guy, sadly.# #
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 7, 2010 14:18:57 GMT -5
Again- most bizzare scenario I could have imagined following SR making $400 mil worldwide---
No sequel, even though the director & cast wanted to-
A different actor being sought out to replace the main Superman after just one successful box office film, who most fans and critics love in the role.
Bizzare.....
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 7, 2010 14:53:03 GMT -5
Exactly^ CAM.   This whole thing makes zero sense to me too, But this is &%# WB we're talking about, so it's not that surprising.. Though I'm not so sure Singer really wanted to make the sequel, tbh... poor Brandon, what a waste of a great Superman. BTW, poor Mark Millar right now...... he's getting LOTS of hate tweets from the Smallville Army and the Lois&Clark fans due to his recent comments about Brandon.. ;D twitter.com/mrmarkmillar |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 8, 2010 1:05:15 GMT -5
Given how Sam Raimi of the Spiderman films was treated by Sony after generating a billion+ plus dollars for them and in interview after interview was DYING to make a good Spiderman movie he was happy with (he talked about disappointments and compromises he was forced to make by the studio on #3).....
It's just hard to know for sure if Singer really did anything 'wrong'. For sure, he could have used a better PR person to keep the spotlight going in the fan community online......but Raimi was (mostly) still an untarnished fan-favorite for Spiderman, and he got derailed...
So- hard to know. If 'Valkyrie' made ten billion dollars MAYBE they would have greenlit MOS regardless of time frame....but....who knows? Even James Cameron still had to deal with proving himself to the studios on "Avatar", even after "Titanic", and even after filming had started----
Maybe it doesn't take MUCH for winds to shift at ANY studio. Unless we're on the inside-inside, we can just speculate.... and- wouldn't ANYONE be upset if they generated a $400 worldwide boxoffice and was told that their film was a disappointment?
Still--- yeah, you know I'll probably be forever-frustrated at 'what could have been' with SR 2......
|
|
|
|
Post by Scissorpuppy on Dec 8, 2010 8:56:34 GMT -5
What's even crazier is this same studio just greenlit "wrath of the titans", the first made good money but had more hate than Superman Returns for sure. They are changing the director...
I still don't understand why they couldn't have went "batman forever" with SR if Singer and WB couldn't work together for whatever reason.
Obviously not the tone of BF, but the idea of a sequel that changes things up.
Nolan was the only thing that excited me about this project, now that he gone. Eh, we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 8, 2010 9:17:17 GMT -5
I just don't understand the idea that these studios seem to think that audiences won't be able to make the connection that this is not an SR sequel if Routh is cast. Do they really think people are that stupid? In fact, ARE people that stupid? These are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. I don't think it's that tough to say, "Yes children, it's the same actor who played Superman in the last movie, but this is a different story."
That's like if the Bond producers had said,
EXEC 1:
"Well, that Lazenby fellow didn't work out as planned, and Sean wants to do another one now. But we couldn't POSSIBLY bring him back, because now the audience won't understand that he's the same guy from On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
EXEC 2:
"We can just tell them that On Her Majesty's Secret Service didn't really happen!"
ME:
"None of this really happened you empty fucking headed suits! That's why it's called FICTION! GAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 8, 2010 11:40:55 GMT -5
Connery's Bond in NSNA was clearly different from the official series: Wasn't he unaware of SPECTRE (or the other way round?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 8, 2010 11:53:57 GMT -5
True, but NSNA is crap.
I was talking more about DaF!
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 14, 2010 22:56:14 GMT -5
Nice to see him get some recognition for his work. IGN has named Brandon Routh's Daniel Shaw from NBC's CHUCK Best TV Villain of 2010!(WARNING MILD SPOILERS)From the moment Daniel Shaw (Brandon Routh) was introduced on Chuck, audiences were poised to hate him. Who was this handsome, skilled spy, who was daring to woo Sarah away from Chuck? Early episodes with Shaw were a bit shaky, as we were asked to believe in a relationship between Shaw and Sarah that didn't quite feel earned. But it turned out Chuck creators Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak had a great swerve in store -- and that rather than watching the rise of a strong hero, we were seeing the creation of an uber-villain. Shaw nearly killing Sarah and Chuck's save via gunshot was a hugely satisfying moment, even as it set the stage for Shaw to return stronger than ever, now powered by his own Intersect. Finally, Chuck had the kind of dark mirror image villain that is so fun to see in geek-friendly stories of this type. bestof.ign.com/2010/tv/best-villain.html 
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 18, 2010 15:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 19, 2010 18:20:26 GMT -5
Welling Vs Routh again? Christ, this is getting stale and boring now. Smallville is ending soon, Routh is not getting another shot and they essentially played different incarnations anyway. What's the point in comparing anymore?
edit: That wasn't a specific dig at you gazer, just the retards who can't move on
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 20, 2010 13:57:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 20, 2010 14:09:08 GMT -5
I still think that if Snyder isn't able to find an actor that WB ends up being happy with--- or - if after a week's dailies - that actor fails to impress, that they could go back to Routh.
Too many instances in the past where a chosen actor fell out, for one reason or another on other high-profile projects. Could happen here, despite what WB & Snyder say they're insistent on right now....
(Unless Routh did something that REALLY pissed off a WB exec, but there's been no evidence of that....)
|
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by matt on Dec 20, 2010 14:21:39 GMT -5
I think WB needs to realize the actor who plays Superman should be respectable person on and off screen. Brandon Routh seems like the nicest person you could meet. He is a person and actor who respects the character. He doesn't have any baggage or get in any scandals. I wouldn't want an actor who get into trouble that would hurt the character imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jan 19, 2011 22:59:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jan 19, 2011 23:16:04 GMT -5
It looks a bit like Bomer too. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by lois on Jan 30, 2011 11:58:04 GMT -5
I enjoyed Brandon's performance in Chuck. He was really good in that role. Was watching SR again last night. He sure filled out the Superman outfit very nicely... *drools* *blush*  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DieselsDen on Jan 31, 2011 3:20:38 GMT -5
Given how Sam Raimi of the Spiderman films was treated by Sony after generating a billion+ plus dollars for them and in interview after interview was DYING to make a good Spiderman movie he was happy with (he talked about disappointments and compromises he was forced to make by the studio on #3)..... It's just hard to know for sure if Singer really did anything 'wrong'. For sure, he could have used a better PR person to keep the spotlight going in the fan community online......but Raimi was (mostly) still an untarnished fan-favorite for Spiderman, and he got derailed... This is exactly what I was thinking when Snyder got the job for the next SUPERMAN movie. There are no creative (not to mention ethical) standards when it comes to these comic book properties and how they are treated in Hollywood. Raimi delivered three huge hits with SPIDER-MAN, and the Sony decides to reboot it anyway less than 10 years after the original premiered. I understand that SPIDER-MAN is their most valued property and they want to milk the damn thing, but starting all over is ridiculous and only serves to devalue the good will. Then again, what else can we expect of a business which panders to the lowest common denominator. |
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by matt on Jan 31, 2011 13:51:20 GMT -5
Given how Sam Raimi of the Spiderman films was treated by Sony after generating a billion+ plus dollars for them and in interview after interview was DYING to make a good Spiderman movie he was happy with (he talked about disappointments and compromises he was forced to make by the studio on #3)..... It's just hard to know for sure if Singer really did anything 'wrong'. For sure, he could have used a better PR person to keep the spotlight going in the fan community online......but Raimi was (mostly) still an untarnished fan-favorite for Spiderman, and he got derailed... This is exactly what I was thinking when Snyder got the job for the next SUPERMAN movie. There are no creative (not to mention ethical) standards when it comes to these comic book properties and how they are treated in Hollywood. Raimi delivered three huge hits with SPIDER-MAN, and the Sony decides to reboot it anyway less than 10 years after the original premiered. I understand that SPIDER-MAN is their most valued property and they want to milk the damn thing, but starting all over is ridiculous and only serves to devalue the good will. Then again, what else can we expect of a business which panders to the lowest common denominator. ROUTH - GONE NORTON - GONE MAGUIRE - GONE |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,817 
|
Post by atp on Jan 31, 2011 14:01:36 GMT -5
Honestly, Routh wasn't THAT great. Yes, he was the least crap thing in an utterly crap film. But still... less crap =/= great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2011 14:21:05 GMT -5
Honestly, Routh wasn't THAT great. Yes, he was the least crap thing in an utterly crap film. But still... less crap =/= great. you dont need to be such a wind up merchant ATP ;D He was good, theres a couple of naff scenes with him but he did well i thought. Anyway, stargazer will be livid, anyone check on her?  |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Jan 31, 2011 15:25:11 GMT -5
It's ok, plenty of the movies that ATP loves are beyond "crap", which makes his views on movies laughable & ignorable for me.
He's the message board's Armond White.
Its funny the first 3 billion times, until you realize he's serious.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 31, 2011 15:35:08 GMT -5
Honestly, Routh wasn't THAT great. Yes, he was the least crap thing in an utterly crap film. But still... less crap =/= great. Actually, if you think about it, SR never exactly stretched Routh's acting abilities. He channelled Reeve as much as he could and most of the time had nothing to do but look miserable or in pain. I think his natural charm carried him a long way and giving him as less lines as possible helped. I wish they'd have stretched him more in his acting. Too late now |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 31, 2011 16:04:06 GMT -5
As much as I love SR & would have loved for WB to keep Routh on, I do agree on this. I've said before that I've only had issues with his line readings at Jason's bedside (discussed on another thread) and thought his Clark was suprisingly stronger than his take on Supes.
Routh had the physical and vocal presence - which, to me, embodied Reeve to a degree. If pushed, I'd have to say that I liked Reeve's Supes over Routh's, and Routh's Clark over Reeve's.
But..... SR to me is mainly a director's vision. It's creatively successful (though not flawless), but much goes to many of the other departments. Still, having said that, the weight of the film's boxoffice depended on his presence. At $400 million worldwide, charm and presence forgives some acting experience.
(Many of the stars in Hollywood in the past arguably aren't all actors of DeNiro's caliber: Stallone, Arnold, Keanu, just to name a few.... but in the end, it didn't matter to the moviegoing public)
I have a hunch that Routh may have been (like Reeve in the beginning) a touch raw, but the presence made up for it- and..... with time, he would have fit in even better into the role.
Tsk.
|
|
This whole thing makes zero sense to me too, But this is &%# WB we're talking about, so it's not that surprising.. 
;D
