|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 25, 2016 12:46:33 GMT -5
First on my list:
What's your style?
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 25, 2016 13:30:06 GMT -5
First on my list: What's your style? Second, are you a Reeve Only Person?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Aug 25, 2016 14:12:10 GMT -5
First on my list: What's your style? My style? You could call it the art of bullying without bullying.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 25, 2016 15:21:19 GMT -5
First on my list: What's your style? that would be secondary to me. My first question would be "are you a mentally challenged dudebro with a fifteen year olds mind in a fifty year old body?" THEN I'd ask him questions about style and tone.
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 25, 2016 15:54:13 GMT -5
First on my list: What's your style? that would be secondary to me. My first question would be "are you a mentally challenged dudebro with a fifteen year olds mind in a fifty year old body?" THEN I'd ask him questions about style and tone. That was Richard Lester. He was the definition of a dude-bro masquerading as a British sophisticate.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 25, 2016 21:01:00 GMT -5
Kid...Lester looked like the most effeminate guy ever. If your gonna take a dig at least make a joke that's kind of believable and not absurdly stupid as f*ck.
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 25, 2016 21:09:40 GMT -5
Kid...Lester looked like the most effeminate guy ever. If your gonna take a dig at least make a joke that's kind of believable and not absurdly stupid as f*ck. This guy looks effeminate to me:
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 25, 2016 21:15:15 GMT -5
He looks like a jersey shore tv reject douchbag. Like Snyder. Lester was a skinny bald middle aged man back then. Way more effiminate than that. Not a dudebro. At least that guy isn't 90 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 25, 2016 23:01:01 GMT -5
First on my list: What's your style? My style? You could call it the art of bullying without bullying. Another fine mess you got me into.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 25, 2016 23:13:43 GMT -5
My list:
#1: What do you think needs fixing with the Superman character? (It's a trick question actually, it should be 'nothing is wrong with the concept, it's all in the execution)
#2: Do you have this strange hidden desire to violently kill off Jimmy Olsen on the bigscreen?
#3: Do you think Superman's red shorts are too weird to have, even though it's been a standard in the comics for decades?
#4: Do you like story twists where the main character can turn back time and undo everything you've seen in a film at the last minute?
#5: What are your thoughts on super-cellophane?
#6: Do you think Luthor should really be a Kryptonian?
#7: Did you think "Watchmen" was a decent adaptation?
#8: Did you like the Star Wars prequels or root canal?
#9: Do you think David Goyer gets the Superman concept, even though he's said in an interview he's said he's not the right guy to write Superman?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Aug 26, 2016 1:39:42 GMT -5
My style? You could call it the art of bullying without bullying. Another fine mess you got me into. We believe he selects forum members...methodically builds their dependence on MoS...then sells them to an elite clientele on Facebook.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 26, 2016 3:01:01 GMT -5
No questions....just some instructions:
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 26, 2016 7:46:51 GMT -5
Better give that to the WB execs too.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 26, 2016 11:47:00 GMT -5
Better give that to the WB execs too. Yes.....that may have been even more pertinent.....it starts from the top......Snyder is ultimately just a gun for hire....and WB definitely picked the wrong gun. I mentioned to Snyder that in hindsight the Singer film might have been boxed in by the past and too tentative — the movie seemed at times like a cautious curator trying to move around among fragile museum pieces. “Yeah, and we’re not afraid of that at all,” Snyder said. “Our Superman, he’s got things to figure out, but he’s a physical cat.”herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/zack-snyder-wont-look-back-theres-been-no-other-superman-movies/That is what pisses me off with ol' Zack. It's almost like he had no respect for the Donner iteration. I have absolutely no problem with Snyder's team making a break from the Salkind/Donner/Lester hybrid and doing their own thing....in fact I would encourage it. BUT You can still have respect for what came before without paying homage to it. Donner(and Lester) respected previous iterations(Reeves,Colyier,Allyn + the comics) without being slaves to it. All that pre-release DOJ promo crap taking superficial jabs at Reeve's Clark. Anyone who analysed Reeve's Clark knows it's an incredibly nuanced and complex performance. Reeve made it look easier than it was. And now having seen DOJ I think the Snyder team is having to re-assess their own analysis of what did come before and that it was not camp or tongue in cheek(sure there were elements of those factors but they were not the definitive trademark of the Donner/Reeve/Lester franchise. I got more of a kick in 1983 watching Evil Supes vs Clark than I did in 2016 watching Doomsday bash Supes.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 26, 2016 12:08:57 GMT -5
Better give that to the WB execs too. Yes.....that may have been even more pertinent.....it starts from the top......Snyder is ultimately just a gun for hire....and WB definitely picked the wrong gun. I mentioned to Snyder that in hindsight the Singer film might have been boxed in by the past and too tentative — the movie seemed at times like a cautious curator trying to move around among fragile museum pieces. “Yeah, and we’re not afraid of that at all,” Snyder said. “Our Superman, he’s got things to figure out, but he’s a physical cat.”herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/zack-snyder-wont-look-back-theres-been-no-other-superman-movies/That is what pisses me off with ol' Zack. It's almost like he had no respect for the Donner iteration. I have absolutely no problem with Snyder's team making a break from the Salkind/Donner/Lester hybrid and doing their own thing....in fact I would encourage it. BUT You can still have respect for what came before without paying homage to it. Donner(and Lester) respected previous iterations(Reeves,Colyier,Allyn + the comics) without being slaves to it. All that pre-release DOJ promo crap taking superficial jabs at Reeve's Clark. Anyone who analysed Reeve's Clark knows it's an incredibly nuanced and complex performance. Reeve made it look easier than it was. And now having seen DOJ I think the Snyder team is having to re-assess their own analysis of what did come before and that it was not camp or tongue in cheek(sure there were elements of those factors but they were not the definitive trademark of the Donner/Reeve/Lester franchise. I got more of a kick in 1983 watching Evil Supes vs Clark than I did in 2016 watching Doomsday bash Supes. You're preaching to the choir Dejan. I felt the same way. They went out of their way to try to distinguish their Clark from Reeve's. But Cavill and Snyder acted like they were the only ones to do what they were doing and that no one else had done what Cavill had done. Most of the other Clarks did the same stuff Cavill did decades ago. It wasn't anything special. And worst of all they only boiled Reeve's Clark down to that when there was far more to it than that. Even Reeve himself said during Superman III that by that point Clark knew where everything was at the planet and wasn't bumping into things anymore. They just made these typical hollywood promotional generalizations. Reeve's Clark Kent had a lot more sides to him that we really got to see in II and III. Cavill was just doing warmed over George Reeves and Dean Cain. There was nothing fresh or new or groundbreaking there. With Reeve there was an actors process at work there. We got to see it at work. With Cavill it just seemed like he didn't think too hard about his performance because it didn't seem very complex in terms of technique. Snyder and Cavill seemed more concerned with how he looked and his body than giving any kind of textured performance. Thats why I think Affleck smoked him on screen. As an actor it just seems like there was more there on screen to watch. Afflecks no brilliant actor but he remembered to show up and actually put some layers in there.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 26, 2016 12:58:44 GMT -5
Another fine mess you got me into. We believe he selects forum members...methodically builds their dependence on MoS...then sells them to an elite clientele on Facebook. Uh, yes. Cause of death was, uh, MOS overdose.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 26, 2016 16:29:34 GMT -5
Yes.....that may have been even more pertinent.....it starts from the top......Snyder is ultimately just a gun for hire....and WB definitely picked the wrong gun. I mentioned to Snyder that in hindsight the Singer film might have been boxed in by the past and too tentative — the movie seemed at times like a cautious curator trying to move around among fragile museum pieces. “Yeah, and we’re not afraid of that at all,” Snyder said. “Our Superman, he’s got things to figure out, but he’s a physical cat.”herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/zack-snyder-wont-look-back-theres-been-no-other-superman-movies/That is what pisses me off with ol' Zack. It's almost like he had no respect for the Donner iteration. I have absolutely no problem with Snyder's team making a break from the Salkind/Donner/Lester hybrid and doing their own thing....in fact I would encourage it. BUT You can still have respect for what came before without paying homage to it. Donner(and Lester) respected previous iterations(Reeves,Colyier,Allyn + the comics) without being slaves to it. All that pre-release DOJ promo crap taking superficial jabs at Reeve's Clark. Anyone who analysed Reeve's Clark knows it's an incredibly nuanced and complex performance. Reeve made it look easier than it was. And now having seen DOJ I think the Snyder team is having to re-assess their own analysis of what did come before and that it was not camp or tongue in cheek(sure there were elements of those factors but they were not the definitive trademark of the Donner/Reeve/Lester franchise. I got more of a kick in 1983 watching Evil Supes vs Clark than I did in 2016 watching Doomsday bash Supes. You're preaching to the choir Dejan. I felt the same way. They went out of their way to try to distinguish their Clark from Reeve's. But Cavill and Snyder acted like they were the only ones to do what they were doing and that no one else had done what Cavill had done. Most of the other Clarks did the same stuff Cavill did decades ago. It wasn't anything special. And worst of all they only boiled Reeve's Clark down to that when there was far more to it than that. Even Reeve himself said during Superman III that by that point Clark knew where everything was at the planet and wasn't bumping into things anymore. They just made these typical hollywood promotional generalizations. Reeve's Clark Kent had a lot more sides to him that we really got to see in II and III. Cavill was just doing warmed over George Reeves and Dean Cain. There was nothing fresh or new or groundbreaking there. With Reeve there was an actors process at work there. We got to see it at work. With Cavill it just seemed like he didn't think too hard about his performance because it didn't seem very complex in terms of technique. Snyder and Cavill seemed more concerned with how he looked and his body than giving any kind of textured performance. Thats why I think Affleck smoked him on screen. As an actor it just seems like there was more there on screen to watch. Afflecks no brilliant actor but he remembered to show up and actually put some layers in there. I'm ok with Cavill.... But not the way that Snyder/Goyer have decided to interpret him for the actor to follow. Reeve was fantastic, but Reeve himself has said that the role was not that difficult for him....(I presume compared to a Shakespeare character or such, as he was a theater guy). But he took it seriously enough to even get co-stars a little irritated at his 'method' acting (jimmy said that off-camera, Reeve was a great guy, but while working asked to stay in character).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 26, 2016 20:01:27 GMT -5
That's not unsusal for guys like that. We see the bs Jared Leto put his co stars through on suicide squad (though I do wonder if some if not all of that was for promotional hype). Peter Weller only responded to Robo or Murphy until Miguel Ferrer gave him crap for it. I think the role of superman is pretty easy for most of the guys who have played him or at least the good ones made it look easy. Superman as a character is a good man not a tortured man full of pathos or some guy with conflicting morals. I don't think it's as easy as they say because not all the actors who have played him have reached the same levels of praise but for be great ones I don't think the acting part of it was a major challenge.
On paper Cavills performance should be brilliant because he's supposedly the most conflicted superman but it's not. I think that's down to a combination of things. To be fair to Cavill his director is a manchild whose idea of quality storytelling is a zombie pop up book.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 27, 2016 8:13:36 GMT -5
Part of me wants to believe Cavill is a good Superman stuck with a director that doesn't like or respect the character's true nature and stuck with half-assed scripts.
I think a big reason for that is that in interviews, Cavill feels more like Superman than he does in the actual movie.
If you watch him in interviews, (or at least the couple I've seen), he smiles a lot and seems like a genuinely nice guy.
But then you watch his performance, and he almost never smiles, is moody and just doesn't seem like Superman even though he has "the look" for Superman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 27, 2016 8:27:05 GMT -5
It's more than just not smiling, Enrique. It's like the dudes face doesn't move. He's got one or two expressions. The human face is more expressive than that.
At a certain point the actors have to step up and push themselves if the director isn't telling them anything or giving any feedback. They have to trust their instincts. Green lantern was a terrible movie but Mark Strong was great in it. He took the reigns on his character and didn't wait to be led by the hand. At some point Cavill has to make suggestions to Snyder. What's Snyder going to do? Fire him for saying "maybe I should do it this way, Zack?"
Alien is a prime example. Most of the cast said Ridley was more concerned with shooting things a certain way than giving his actors feedback. He trusted his actors to know what they needed to do. Eventually the excuse of Cavill not getting good direction doesn't really hold water anymore. He said he read the comics. Well...look at how Superman acts in those, Henry.
I think the guys instincts on the role are just off. Maybe he doesn't like the previous takes on superman and is so wrapped up in making his different he's losing the core of the character. Cavill seems more concerned with his image and looking good as superman than really just going for it. Maybe he doesn't want to come off as goofy or silly and is holding back? sometimes you have to let go and go for it.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 27, 2016 11:53:58 GMT -5
It's more than just not smiling, Enrique. It's like the dudes face doesn't move. He's got one or two expressions. The human face is more expressive than that. At a certain point the actors have to step up and push themselves if the director isn't telling them anything or giving any feedback. They have to trust their instincts. Green lantern was a terrible movie but Mark Strong was great in it. He took the reigns on his character and didn't wait to be led by the hand. At some point Cavill has to make suggestions to Snyder. What's Snyder going to do? Fire him for saying "maybe I should do it this way, Zack?" Alien is a prime example. Most of the cast said Ridley was more concerned with shooting things a certain way than giving his actors feedback. He trusted his actors to know what they needed to do. Eventually the excuse of Cavill not getting good direction doesn't really hold water anymore. He said he read the comics. Well...look at how Superman acts in those, Henry. I think the guys instincts on the role are just off. Maybe he doesn't like the previous takes on superman and is so wrapped up in making his different he's losing the core of the character. Cavill seems more concerned with his image and looking good as superman than really just going for it. Maybe he doesn't want to come off as goofy or silly and is holding back? sometimes you have to let go and go for it. To be fair Cavill admitted at the last ComicCon that Reeve's portrayal was so good that "it would have been dangerous for me to even get close to that". Let's be honest.....Bale's Batman has already been sidelined by Affleck's. Same with MgGuire's and Garfield's Spidey ,Bana's and Norton's Hulk and so on. It would have been easy for Cavill to say it would have been difficult to follow after Routh's excellent performance. But Reeve has left such an indelible mark on the interpretation of the character any subsequent actor is going to have their hands full shaking it off.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 27, 2016 12:21:14 GMT -5
By sidelined do you mean surpassed? If so I agree with that. I thought Maguire's Peter was better than his Spider-man and despite being in some questionable movies I felt Garfield really nailed both sides in The Amazing Spider-man 2 and surpassed him. I think Tom Holland has the potential to best both of them.
I remember Cavill saying that and while it was a classy way to praise Reeve and say he was doing his own thing I think you can give a great performance AND stand out from your predecessors doing something different. I like what Ruffalo is doing with Bruce Banner even though I think Bill Bixbys potrayal still looms large. I think that's because Ruffalo remembered to keep the same elements that made Bixbys so sucessful while doing it his way. The humanity and the intelligence is still there. I think where Bana failed is his Bruce banner was so damaged that he wasn't as relatable or human.
Reeve himself had to follow George Reeves who really embodied superman for a generation. Their takes on the character are pretty different but they are both sucessful because they didn't leave out what makes the character tick and what makes him so likable in the first place.
I liked Routh but he and Cavill face some of the same problems in role and I think for years WB has tried to make superman more "relatable" but if anything they keep on moving further and further way from what makes Superman relatable.
I know Bale has said he felt he didn't quite nail batman or Bruce Wayne and while I enjoyed what he did a lot I agree. I think Affleck brought an extra element, maybe it was darkness or intensity, that Bale lacked. I've always felt Bale was playing something closer to the Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams version of Batman while Affleck is playing Frank Millers. One is a crime solving man of action detective. The other is a brutal dark knight.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 27, 2016 14:33:16 GMT -5
By sidelined do you mean surpassed? If so I agree with that. I thought Maguire's Peter was better than his Spider-man and despite being in some questionable movies I felt Garfield really nailed both sides in The Amazing Spider-man 2 and surpassed him. I think Tom Holland has the potential to best both of them. I remember Cavill saying that and while it was a classy way to praise Reeve and say he was doing his own thing I think you can give a great performance AND stand out from your predecessors doing something different. I like what Ruffalo is doing with Bruce Banner even though I think Bill Bixbys potrayal still looms large. I think that's because Ruffalo remembered to keep the same elements that made Bixbys so sucessful while doing it his way. The humanity and the intelligence is still there. I think where Bana failed is his Bruce banner was so damaged that he wasn't as relatable or human. Reeve himself had to follow George Reeves who really embodied superman for a generation. Their takes on the character are pretty different but they are both sucessful because they didn't leave out what makes the character tick and what makes him so likable in the first place. I liked Routh but he and Cavill face some of the same problems in role and I think for years WB has tried to make superman more "relatable" but if anything they keep on moving further and further way from what makes Superman relatable. I know Bale has said he felt he didn't quite nail batman or Bruce Wayne and while I enjoyed what he did a lot I agree. I think Affleck brought an extra element, maybe it was darkness or intensity, that Bale lacked. I've always felt Bale was playing something closer to the Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams version of Batman while Affleck is playing Frank Millers. One is a crime solving man of action detective. The other is a brutal dark knight. Yeah!....I was trying to find a diplomatic word to define Bales's predicament. Obviously Affleck has only had one film and has had to represent Batman at a certain stage in his life......Bale had to interpret Bruce Wayne's and Batman's arc from childhood to seasoned veteran.....so it's difficult to compare. In 2005 Bale said that he was using Christopher Reeve's template for Superman...........in terms of giving a definitive performance with regards to Batman. Some might argue Keaton had already delivered that(in cinematic terms) Looking at the folks around at the moment I would say that maybe Robert Downey JR has Iron Man sown up. Whoever replaces him may have a tough assignment. Maybe Hemsworth has done the same with Thor(another maskless hero)......but who does not have the dual identity angle that you get with Supes. Thing is with Superman......there is no mask or head gear to hide behind.7 Spiderman....you do have the Peter Parker element.....but the minute the mask goes on it's almost anyone's game in terms of who represents him.....heck Spiderman has been a CGI character for half the time!(be it in the Maguire or Garfield flicks) The same could apply to Batman,Flash,Cyborg,Cap America ect ect.......they all have some measure of protection from the masks. So Cavill has a tough one........may be he should accept the danger......and try and approximate Reeve....trouble is that even if he wanted to....Snyder won't allow him.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 27, 2016 16:51:53 GMT -5
By sidelined do you mean surpassed? If so I agree with that. I thought Maguire's Peter was better than his Spider-man and despite being in some questionable movies I felt Garfield really nailed both sides in The Amazing Spider-man 2 and surpassed him. I think Tom Holland has the potential to best both of them. I remember Cavill saying that and while it was a classy way to praise Reeve and say he was doing his own thing I think you can give a great performance AND stand out from your predecessors doing something different. I like what Ruffalo is doing with Bruce Banner even though I think Bill Bixbys potrayal still looms large. I think that's because Ruffalo remembered to keep the same elements that made Bixbys so sucessful while doing it his way. The humanity and the intelligence is still there. I think where Bana failed is his Bruce banner was so damaged that he wasn't as relatable or human. Reeve himself had to follow George Reeves who really embodied superman for a generation. Their takes on the character are pretty different but they are both sucessful because they didn't leave out what makes the character tick and what makes him so likable in the first place. I liked Routh but he and Cavill face some of the same problems in role and I think for years WB has tried to make superman more "relatable" but if anything they keep on moving further and further way from what makes Superman relatable. I know Bale has said he felt he didn't quite nail batman or Bruce Wayne and while I enjoyed what he did a lot I agree. I think Affleck brought an extra element, maybe it was darkness or intensity, that Bale lacked. I've always felt Bale was playing something closer to the Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams version of Batman while Affleck is playing Frank Millers. One is a crime solving man of action detective. The other is a brutal dark knight. Yeah!....I was trying to find a diplomatic word to define Bales's predicament. Obviously Affleck has only had one film and has had to represent Batman at a certain stage in his life......Bale had to interpret Bruce Wayne's and Batman's arc from childhood to seasoned veteran.....so it's difficult to compare. In 2005 Bale said that he was using Christopher Reeve's template for Superman...........in terms of giving a definitive performance with regards to Batman. Some might argue Keaton had already delivered that(in cinematic terms) Looking at the folks around at the moment I would say that maybe Robert Downey JR has Iron Man sown up. Whoever replaces him may have a tough assignment. Maybe Hemsworth has done the same with Thor(another maskless hero)......but who does not have the dual identity angle that you get with Supes. Thing is with Superman......there is no mask or head gear to hide behind.7 Spiderman....you do have the Peter Parker element.....but the minute the mask goes on it's almost anyone's game in terms of who represents him.....heck Spiderman has been a CGI character for half the time!(be it in the Maguire or Garfield flicks) The same could apply to Batman,Flash,Cyborg,Cap America ect ect.......they all have some measure of protection from the masks. So Cavill has a tough one........may be he should accept the danger......and try and approximate Reeve....trouble is that even if he wanted to....Snyder won't allow him. Bale and Affleck are playing such different takes on the character even when you get to TDKRises where they are in similar places in life. Affleck is playing a man who is far more obsessive and angry and frankly still grieving. You get a sense that Bale was a more realistic every man. He wasn't looking to be Batman forever. I don't think anyone can imagine Afflecks Batman ever retiring. If there is a Superman analog to Bales Batman it's Rouths Superman. They both tried to play up three sides of the characters instead of focusing on just one like most other incarnations. The orphaned boy that's the "real" them, the public masks we see in the city that people don't take seriously, and the caped hero. Keaton was a great Batman (arguably better than Bale) but I wouldn't call him definitive either. The way it was executed just wasn't THE Batman in some of ways and his Bruce Wayne while interesting and having some facets of the character down was missing others. For me a definitive Batman would be something like Batman TAS made flesh. Even though Affleck is in a crap movie I think he's getting to play around with certain things that the others never got to. There's a hardness and edge and darkness there that really only Keaton came close to but Afflecks Batman is even more brutal and sadistic. Plus Affleck plays a Bruce Wayne where his drunken womanizer act isn't an act anymore. Then you had West who was a perfect Silver Age Batman AND Bruce Wayne. RDJ will be a tough act to follow. He's not the comic book Tony Stark but it's one of those performances that's redefined the source material kind of like Christopher Reeve as Superman. He's done so much, been in so many movies, and been so sucessful that the first person who replaces him will have an extremely hard time measuring up. I don't envy them because it's an almost impossible task. No character has launched a cinematic universe as successfully as Downeys Iron Man has. Thor will be a not so hard replacement. Hemsworth is good but he's really only had one movie where his character had a strong arc. Thor was almost a non factor in age of Ultron. The hard part will be finding an actor with Hemsworth's decent skill as an actor AND his looks and size. It's easy to find one or the other but not both. Big dudes are a dime a dozen but they have to be able to get someone who is a halfway decent actor too. That's true about Spidey. The mask offers some freedom. Anyone could be under there. You also don't have to worry as much about acting with you face. It's all about body language. But you have to get the personality right under the mask. Maguire never really got it perfect. To be fair to him Raimi didn't have his Spider-man talk much. The dialogue literally wasn't there for him to work with. It's one thing Garfield was always better at when they were both given the same opportunities. His Spider-man not only had personality but he was better at displaying it. With Cavill I don't think it's an issue of trying to be like Reeve. He doesn't need to do that. But he's not even capturing the spirit or personality of the character from the comics either. Cavill just comes off as dull and rather flat as Superman. I've seen mannequins with more charisma and personality. Cavills got to do his part to make Superman a compelling character and stop acting like he's constipated all the time. Cause that's what it looks like. Nice Star Trek III reference btw.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 27, 2016 19:28:27 GMT -5
Batfleck worked for me from how it was framed from his point of view at the start of BvS, but I'd still trade in Batfleck for Balebat anyday.
The ONE thing that I thought was superior that I do have to give Snyder credit for, was seeing the FIRST Batman action scene done 'right'. It's brutal and energetic.
In rewatching Nolan's Batman fight sequences, they're... ok.... but I never felt that Nolan had a good handle on the hand-to-hand stuff (the car action is great though). For Batman fistfights, I'd ok Snyder for directing that.
|
|