Henry Cavill

[EnriqueH]

So now that the excitement has tapered, does everyone still like Cavill?

[crazy_asian_man]

I haven't found anything to dislike, although I would have been just as fine with Routh in MOS. Cavil may be a stronger actor, but (and it's been discussed before) Routh's got a lot of natural charm as Supes that I think could have helped MOS, too.

[EnriqueH]

With time I've come to regard Routh as a likeable but amateurish screen presence. I thought he was the heir apparent, but repeat viewings made it obvious he wasn't a great actor and that Singer "protected" his lack of acting ability.

I can't remember anything distinctive about Cavill except that his Superman is from Vulcan. I'd say he needs pointed ears but Zachary Quinto has more personality and screen presence.

Superman's way too uptight in these films. What happened to the extroverted, confident albeit conservative Superman?

[crazy_asian_man]

With time I've come to regard Routh as a likeable but amateurish screen presence. I thought he was the heir apparent, but repeat viewings made it obvious he wasn't a great actor and that Singer "protected" his lack of acting ability.

Some of the line readings do feel 'off' in SR- I agree. But, with the number of years that passed by, one would hope/assume that he had been taking classes and training during the 'off' time, under the radar- much like Jessica Lange did, when she had a too-early debut with De Laurentis' King Kong, back in the day.

But--- really hard to know. I heard terrible things about Dylan Dog (still haven't seen it), but know he was great in Scott Pilgrim in a comedic role & in Chuck as a villain in a few episodes.

He might not have had the same training as Reeve - but I think it would be a loss for Hollywood & fans to write him off permanently. If Keanu Reeves can be considered a great actor and have a long career, I'd think Routh would have gifts comparable, that could still develop, but who knows?

[Deleted]

Superman ain't exactly a happy go lucky character anymore. Not just in film. In the comics, too. His original source. Yes. That's right. He's dark and brooding in the comics, too. It ain't just SR and MOS. It's Superman. It's what society as done to him. It's just how it is. People don't want happy and confident. Where does that work nowadays? Anywhere? I can't think of a single character in a comic book movie that's happy and confident. At all. Every one has a problem or something. Even Spidey. Even Iron Man. It's just how it is. It's a bummer, but seriously, you must accept this and move on or you're going to be complaining about how the Superman you know and love is gone for the rest of your life.

Personally, I thought Cavill was fantastic and I can't WAIT to see what happens next.

[Jimbo]

I thought Cavill was great. Better than Routh. But Routh was in a slightly better movie.

[atp]

Cavill had great abs and he made the particles swirl in the air before taking off so he is the best Superman ever.

[Deleted]

Aug 25, 2013 1:58:22 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

Superman ain't exactly a happy go lucky character anymore. Not just in film. In the comics, too. His original source. Yes. That's right. He's dark and brooding in the comics, too. It ain't just SR and MOS. It's Superman. It's what society as done to him. It's just how it is. People don't want happy and confident. Where does that work nowadays? Anywhere? I can't think of a single character in a comic book movie that's happy and confident. At all. Every one has a problem or something. Even Spidey. Even Iron Man. It's just how it is. It's a bummer, but seriously, you must accept this and move on or you're going to be complaining about how the Superman you know and love is gone for the rest of your life.

Personally, I thought Cavill was fantastic and I can't WAIT to see what happens next.

I can't think of a real person in my life who is happy and confident. Happiness is a lie. There is only contentment.

[Metallo]

Aug 25, 2013 1:02:30 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

With time I've come to regard Routh as a likeable but amateurish screen presence. I thought he was the heir apparent, but repeat viewings made it obvious he wasn't a great actor and that Singer "protected" his lack of acting ability.

I can't remember anything distinctive about Cavill except that his Superman is from Vulcan. I'd say he needs pointed ears but Zachary Quinto has more personality and screen presence.

Superman's way too uptight in these films. What happened to the extroverted, confident albeit conservative Superman?

Wow that's probably the best description I've seen. He did play it like a Vulcan. But it shows where Cavill failed. Nimoy played an emotionally repressed character but his performance was far more engaging and nuanced than Cavills. Cavill just came off like a plank of wood sometimes. I liked him. He seemed decent enough. But there wasn't much range there even when he was supposed to have it. That's why I found it hard to root for his Clark or invest in him. I'm not gonna just do it because I'm supposed to because I like Superman. I need to feel it. I think Cavill is the better actor but Routh seemed more likable to me. It was something intrinsic. I think that's one reason why Singer cast him.

It's not about being happy go lucky. Bixbys Banner wasn't skipping around smiling. But he played a tragic outcast with a great deal of humanity and depth. It seemed easy and natural to him. He was a character you could empathize with so easily because of that. That's the difference between getting an actor who reads his lines all serious like And an actor that has a ton of soul and humanity. Reeve had the same thing even though his character was different.

[ye5man]

Both were let down by scripts. Henry has more range, Routh was just a Reeve clone but neither had the opportunity to show their potential IMO.

Be interesting to see if they allow Henry to chill out a bit in the sequel

[Metallo]

He might need a new writer and director for that. Cavill and the Superman "sequel" are already being overshadowed by Batman. If Affleck DOES turn in a beast performance it'd be sad to see Cavill get outdone in his own movie. If this is a sequel I mean.

[atp]

What do you think about how he looked as Superman in the suit?

And how come the dragonfly's flying effects looked better than Superman's?

[EnriqueH]

I think Metallo's Bixby comparison illustrates EXACTLY how I feel. It's a melancholy, brooding show, but it worked because Bixby never lost the humanity of the character.

And that's what Superman actors have to figure out: how to make him human, super human if you will.

What makes Superman special to me is his super human self. He's an idealized version of ourselves.

I haven't read Superman comics since around 2003, but if he's dark and brooding than it makes sense to me why nobody cares about him as much as they care about Spiderman, Iron Man, Wolverine or Batman. He's lost that which made him stand out in the first place. And in effect lost his identity.

As for Cavill, I left the theater thinking he was good and I may think that again when I see the film a second time, but as of now, all I can remember is a guy who barely held ANY emotions. He was a Vulcan without Nimoy's charisma or acting ability.

As for "happy and confident", I wasn't referring to "happy", I said "extroverted". Superman in SR and MOS is socially awkward and brooding when he's supposed to be confident. Extroverted and confident does work and that's what made the character special. If he's not extroverted and confident, he's not Superman.

It's what made the Reeve movies work. We all romanticize the 70s as the time that Star Wars, Jaws, Superman and disco music came out, but nostalgia isn't influencing my opinion. The 70s was the time off malaise, energy crisis, Watergate, Vietnam. The 70s were just as shitty as what we have. The difference is that Donner stuck to what made Superman unique, and the performance resonates to this day. Again, it's not nostalgia, it's the belief that what makes the character work are the characteristics which he has lost.

By the way, CAM, it's funny that you should mention Keanu Reeves because he reminds me of Routh in a way. Reeves is one of the worst mainstream actors out there, but he kicked ass in The Matrix because you could tell the Wachowski Bros did a good job hiding his lack of acting ability.

[Metallo]

I agree. What made me think of Bixby was everyone saying this Superman is more relatable. But I'm not some monotone robot. Yeah ok Cavills Clark was supposed to be this "lost" wandering soul (much like David Banner wandered from place to place looking for answers). And he carried around just as much guilt as Cavills Clark. But I could relate to his Banner on a basic emotional level because Bixby made a connection.. And it ain't just the material. Bixby ALWAYS had that. Go watch his episode of the Andy Griffith Show. He was a great actor in any part. It's probably why Hugh Jackman was so hard up to play him in a biopic for a while.

The Reeve films showed a character that always cared about people. That's not something he should have to learn later because of some excuses like its his first day as Superman. It's something he learned from a very young age. That's what makes him Superman. Not the powers or even the suit.

[crazy_asian_man]

Superman ain't exactly a happy go lucky character anymore. Not just in film. In the comics, too. His original source. Yes. That's right. He's dark and brooding in the comics, too. It ain't just SR and MOS. It's Superman. It's what society as done to him. It's just how it is. People don't want happy and confident. Where does that work nowadays? Anywhere? I can't think of a single character in a comic book movie that's happy and confident. At all. Every one has a problem or something. Even Spidey. Even Iron Man. It's just how it is. It's a bummer, but seriously, you must accept this and move on or you're going to be complaining about how the Superman you know and love is gone for the rest of your life.

Grant Morrison wrote a great bit (though I wish I could recall if it's from his non-fic book 'Supergods' or if it was an interview elsewhere) about how comics are trying to bend to reality, whereas he felt that it should be the other way around- reality should bend to the comics.

Result? Morrison's All-star Superman stories are considered some of the best Superman stories- while I don't think he was a 'happy go lucky' character- he felt like the same character in comics decades ago. He didn't feel a need to make things conform to the darkness he sees in reality.*

Especially in comics, where kids (at least back in the day) went to comics to dream of something bigger and better than reality.**

Kids can accept almost anything in a story- including a cheerful and optimistic superhero- but I don't think it's until a certain age, where they start to turn cynical and critical. And optimism seems naive and worst of all 'not cool'.(Which is why I think Batman appeals to everyone's dark parts of themselves) The kids start to split into camps where Superman either is cool or not cool, because he sees the best in things, trusts authority and 'the system' so to speak, and not the worst.

The only thing is: Superman isn't being targeted for wide-eyed 7-year olds, as much of DC comics were in the past- but the audience being targeted for Superman now is a world that believes in fear, suspicion, and darkness.

Superman used to be REALLY be about hope (not just lip service) and optimism- but good writers can find a way to keep it that way, or bury that and say that it's too dated.

Maybe movies need to bury that, to get the same dollars as TDK- but Superman is somewhere between Santa Claus and Batman, depending on the execution... and that I think made it tricky for live=action adaptation.

With Donner- kids and adults could all enjoy Superman.
With Singer- it was an odd mix--- it definitely was more for the adults, while trying to preserve the same take on the character. (I never felt SR was for kids)
With Snyder- it was for those who wanted a harder-edged cold take on Superman.


In any case- the best scifi/fantasy stories all have conflict in it, but ultimately it's either on the side of being more hopeful for the future, or just a resignation that everything is ultimately going to suck in real life.

I don't need a Superman passing by the camera and smiling at the end of every Superman film, but it would be nice if a general feeling of optimism for humanity by the end of a Superman film was a requirement. (Lovers kissing in the middle of charred ruins that look like 9/11 doesn't count as a 'feel good moment'- imo).

But--- it's all about what you feel you want/deserve on how the character is portrayed.... and what that is apparently is different enough that the last two movies have enough controversy attached to it to last a lifetime.

((*I haven't read all of the whole new Morrison 're-invention' of Superman to know if Morrison also changed Superman's optimism- but from what I can glean of DC behind the scenes, all the heroes' re-inventions sounded like more of a re-invention by committee than an individual.))

((**This is of course the time frame while kids are actually open to books before a number get addicted to videogames))

[Metallo]

I agree with Morrison. You don't want to suck all the wonder out of these characters but WBs so myopically focused on the Nolan model that that's exactly what they are doing. There's a reason Goyers not half the writer Morrison is. Morrison has the imagination and the talent to see what something could be. He's a real creative visionary at his best. If I want the real world Id look out friggin side. Give me something with some imagination that takes me on an adventure. Goyers never really had much imagination for heroes like Superman and often thumbed his nose at them. He's even said the darker heroes were what he was into.

[Deleted]

Fantastic. Not having the traditional Clark Kent duel identity took a little away from it but he was an excellent choice. Brought his own fresh take to it and his last few scenes in the film were total Superman. Also physically the most impressive Superman by a landslide.

Thrilled he'll get to do it all over again and with the Daily Planet Clark Kent added in too.

[Metallo]

What makes you think his Daily planet Clark will be all that different from his regular Clark? Like you said this is a totally different take. Routh and Reeve's Clark's gave them something extra because they were different. George Reeves Clark worked because he had more natural charisma than Cavill anyway and they came out in his Kent performance. That's what made him one of the best. Cain's Daily Planet Clark was just a normal guy. If Cavills take is all realistic and "relatable" he should just be a guy.

[Deleted]

He could potentially be the first guy to play traditional comic book Clark in a motion picture, ie not the goofy always bumping into things squeeky Clark. He has to conceal his identity which means something has to change, whether it be his body language and mannerisms, or a slight change in his voice, but it's more about seeing his working relationship with Lois and the added element of Lois knowing his identity. I've never cared for the George Reeves show or George Reeves in general to be honest, i found it a little toe curling.

I can't wait to see what they've got in store for the next film and to see even more of Cavill's Superman.

[Metallo]

Aug 25, 2013 12:56:22 GMT -5 @kris said:

He could potentially be the first guy to play traditional comic book Clark in a motion picture, ie not the goofy always bumping into things squeeky Clark. He has to conceal his identity which means something has to change, whether it be his body language and mannerisms, or a slight change in his voice, but it's more about seeing his working relationship with Lois and the added element of Lois knowing his identity. I've never cared for the George Reeves show or George Reeves in general to be honest, i found it a little toe curling.

I can't wait to see what they've got in store for the next film and to see even more of Cavill's Superman.

Again what makes you think they will do all of that? This Superman might not be as public as the past. Maybe his Clark will be more low key. It's not like he has to hide his ID from Lois. Maybe Perry will know. Maybe the government will now. In Goyers gritty realistic world how could they not. A fake voice isn't REALISTICALLY going to fool anyone if we go by the Goyer mantra. That's the whole lame assed problem with Clark having a secret ID in MOS. Just like Simon Pegg said.

expecting "traditional comic book Clark" is a bit soon considering everyone's saying this isn't even a traditional comic book Superman movie. I mean...which is it? What does "traditional comic book Clark" even mean since I've seen it played a LOT of ways over the years. Shuster might not have drawn Clark as bumping into things but he did look like a timid fool at times. Cavill sure isn't going to do that is he? There's been more takes on Clark than just Reeve or Byrnes.

You might not care for Reeves but his place has already been carved out by history. He did what Cavill hasn't in so many ways and won't get the chance to do. His show set a trend instead of following one. His show was one of the first of its kind in a brand new medium. MOS sure as shit hasn't down that. It's just another comic book movie in a long line of comic book movies.

As for seeing more of Cavills Superman you might have to wait until Batfleck finishes his time in the movies spotlight first.

[ye5man]

but as of now, all I can remember is a guy who barely held ANY emotions. He was a Vulcan without Nimoy's charisma or acting ability.

Agreed


I wonder how different his CK will be. There were people LOL at the cinema cos there was no physical difference. I very much doubt he'll be a "bumbler".

I've never cared for the George Reeves show or George Reeves in general to be honest, i found it a little toe curling.

Go and watch that first season. Nothing toe curling about a semi-serious/violent 1950s noir detective show. Bob Maxwell was criticised for the violence but damn they hold your interest completely throughout.

[Metallo]

That joke Cavill tried to tell when kissing Lois was horrid. Did Goyer just rip off Speed? Making a joke like that after all that shows just how tonally fucked up MOS was


As for AOS...Reeves helped break new ground. MOS felt like a hodge podge copy of a bunch of recent blockbusters like a drafted by committee WB tentpole. Maybe the reason Cavill acted like a Vulcan was because they forgot to do more work after they blatantly and uncreatively copied Star Trek 09

[ye5man]

George Reeves gave a 100% unique performance - in a very low budget, hastily filmed TV series of the 50s. The fact the show is still so popular says it all. The show, like STM, is a Pop culture legend. SR and MoS are simply not.

[Metallo]

What Reeves did was not only jump out of the previous guys shadow but gave a far superior performance. He wasn't the first but he made a huge mark on the character. Enough of a mark that guys after him copied elements of his performance. Even Cavill is closer to the Reeves mold even if he doesn't know it. Reeves just had more natural charm that Cavill lacks.

[atp]

Aug 25, 2013 13:32:33 GMT -5 Metallo said:

MOS felt like a hodge podge copy of a bunch of recent blockbusters like a drafted by committee WB tentpole. Maybe the reason Cavill acted like a Vulcan was because they forgot to do more work after they blatantly and uncreatively copied Star Trek 09

Exactly.

In fact, it's easy to rattle off a list of the various trendy movies and shows that got copied by MoS.

1) Dragonfly = Avatar
2) Kryptonian armour = Game of Thrones
3) Zod's helmet = Prometheus
4) Ancient ship trapped for thousands of years = Prometheus
5) Hologram Jor-El = Battlestar Galactica (new version)
6) Genesis chamber = Battlestar Galactica (new version)
7) Superman's first flight = Iron Man's first flight

And it goes on and on.

At least they're not going to try and cash in on the popularity of Breaking Bad in the sequel. Oh wait....