|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 6, 2018 4:34:43 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FbKbLEG040Unfortunately there was no listed panel for Routh to speak at the Heroes convention this year, but found this GREAT interview on Routh (finally an interviewer who asked most of the questions I would have wanted to ask!)- the only two questions that were left on the table that weren't asked that I would of were: (1) Did the writers or Singer share ANY bits on what the sequel was going to do with Superman (and the family triangle)? (2) Does/did anyone mention ANYTHING about the possibility of returning to Superman on tv and/or movie - and/or have you put it out there? It's great that Routh mentions he would add more if he was able to play him now, and the interview adds a LOT that I haven't seen Routh address before- but, yeah, as always... I want more! 
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2018 7:30:13 GMT -5
I’ll definitely watch this when I get the chance. I know stuff has leaked out so Routh has probably at least heard some of the ideas for SR 2 through the grapevine
|
|
|
|
Post by ger-el on Dec 6, 2018 16:10:11 GMT -5
Fair play to him. Great, honest answers. Seems to be a fairly grounded and appreciative man. Good interview. I enjoyed Superman Returns and its flaws. To me, he was a bright spot in the movie and I was looking forward to a sequel. Either way, enjoyed the interview.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2018 18:30:38 GMT -5
Yeah it was a good interview. I thought Steve had a poor choice of words once or twice but it was still informative. Routh made a great point that with some age on him he’d be even better as a veteran Superman now. He was a great choice for a newbie Superman but some life experience would have given him a deeper well to draw from to play a Superman who had gone through some tough life experiences of his own
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 8, 2018 1:42:20 GMT -5
I'm glad you guys liked the interview as much as I did- My search for it was prompted by the Heroes fest this year, and a bit of frustration that I didn't really feel like I couldn't ask some of the questions that Younis actually asked in that youtube video! Also, in retrospect, I can understand reasons why the questions and answers might not have been around earlier, when it was first announced that MOS was happening and SR 2 was not: #1: Interviewers might have wanted to tip-toe about asking Routh SR questions around this time, given how awful he was treated. (Having to learn you're not getting a sequel from the internet is pretty awful)... #2: Even if interviewers asked, who knows how delicate one's mental state would have been with such a disappointment? I doubt there was a 'pay or play' option like Nicolas Cage supposedly got for his Superman movie... #3: Even if Routh was able to handle it well fast at the time- if I were him - I still might have not known how to articulate it properly in a way that fans and/or journalists might have wanted- With all those considerations- I'm glad that the timing for the questions seemed fine for Brandon in that interview, and his healthy perspective on the whole thing. (The SR 2 not happening could have been - and it would have been understandable - scarring enough or painful enough to never want to talk about again.... much like Sydney Furie on Superman IV)- So, anyhow, I'm glad that SR is (rightfully imo) a source of pride for Brandon and not pain- and it was nice to hear that fans who share their love for it seemed to help/helps to retain that feeling of SR as a movie.... and that Brandon seems to have a good place as Ray Palmer and in his life. From everything read about him, he seems like a good dude. But- I still want to know what might have been for SURE on SR 2! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 8, 2018 12:35:57 GMT -5
I think time has been somewhat kinder and kinder to SR over the years. It still divides a lot of fans but a lot of people have taken the grass is always greener view after MOS and BvS. For some those films make SR look better in retrospect but even beyond that I think some have learned to accept what the film was trying to do with certain story elements.
Rouths been nothing but class over the years when talking about how he felt about the film and the aftermath. To me that shows that he gets it. He’s smart enough not to burn bridges or get a reputation. You look at Terrence Howard and certain other actors who brought it on themselves and yet they made a much bigger stink when they didn’t get another shot at these roles. It could have been a big opportunity for him if he’d rode it out the way Evans and go did. They made far less than he did early on but now they’re reaping the rewards.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 8, 2018 15:46:28 GMT -5
I think time has been somewhat kinder and kinder to SR over the years. It still divides a lot of fans but a lot of people have taken the grass is always greener view after MOS and BvS. For some those films make SR look better in retrospect but even beyond that I think some have learned to acepf what the film was trying to do with certain story elements. Rouths been nothing but class over the years when talking about how he felt about the film and the aftermath. To me that shows that he gets it. He’s smart enough not to burn bridges or get a reputation. You look at Terrence Howard and certain other actors who brought it on themselves and yet they made a much bigger stink when they didn’t get another shot at these roles. It could have been a big opportunity for him if he’d rode it out the way Evans and go did. They made far less than he did early on but now they’re reaping the rewards. Routh was REEEEALLY smart (or just incredibly polite, which I believe, too)- not to say anything negative about how poorly he was treated with the non-SR happening (though it would be understandable). It IS great that because of it, there seemed to be no barriers to him getting cast on WB tv as a superhero & continue to be on Legends. With Terrance Howard, I've listened to him on the radio interviews in the beginning where his story is credible about them casting him first and things being promised that the studio reneged on.... but I've also heard/seen actors that may have been difficult that doesn't get mentioned, too--- so I don't know the whole story or who exactly to believe... But- Kevin Feige had no problem openly chastising Edward Norton when the Hulk was over (though I do think Norton is a much closer fit to the comic book look of Banner)- so I really don't know... but, with Cheadle taking over the role, the chemistry never felt the same as with Howard and RDJ's character. Also- they really never gave Cheadle's character that much development at all despite the number of appearances in the MCU. I think Howard was much better off being the lead of Empire (a show that had a great first season, but meh on subsequent ones)- hopefully he made up for what he may have missed out in the movies... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 8, 2018 19:44:27 GMT -5
In the long term I think Cheadle and Downey have better chemistry than Howard and Downey the thing is it’s totally different. Howard’s Rhodes came off as more passive while Cheadle’s Rhodes would more often butt heads with Stark. Howard came off as soft for a miltary man while Cheadle was appropriately more of a hard case. He also had the build of an Air Force pilot more than Howard.
Howard got paid more than most on IM1 including Downey since he was cast early. Most of Howard’s issues come off as pay related and we know how tight fisted Perlumutter can be but I think Howard asked for too much or should have looked at the long term and taken a lesser fee. He could renegotiate later. But it’s also very telling that Howard’s film career isn’t what it used to be either after he was in some highly praised films. To me that says he might be difficult to work with.
Norton definitely did it to himself. He says he wanted to make a better film but film is a collaboration and Feige was still the boss. He’s another one even beyond Marvel who has seen his career take a slide. Norton’s a great talent so the only real answer is he’s not easy to work with. That’s only tolerated if a star is making the studios big money. Once that stops that kind of behavior isn’t tolerated.
None of the big screen Banners have been dead on right to me. Sometimes Norton was better sometimes Bana sometimes Ruffalo. I didn’t think Ruffalo was particularly good in Infinity War though. Before that I thought he was usually pretty good with his best performance being in the first Avengers movie. Bixby is still by far the best imo and when he was younger he really looked the part. Bixby was best at combining humanity with compassion suffering and intelligence. He also seemed credible with the science babble or technobabble. Ruffalo really seemed to have trouble with that at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 9, 2018 4:53:47 GMT -5
In the long term I think Cheadle and Downey have better chemistry than Howard and Downey the thing is it’s totally different. Howard’s Rhodes came off as more passive while Cheadle’s Rhodes would more often butt heads with Stark. Howard came off as soft for a miltary man while Cheadle was appropriately more of a hard case. He also had the build of an Air Force pilot more than Howard. Howard got paid more than most on IM1 including Downey since he was cast early. Most of Howard’s issues come off as pay related and we know how tight fisted Perlumutter can be but I think Howard asked for too much or should have looked at the long term and taken a lesser fee. He could renegotiate later. But it’s also very telling that Howard’s film career isn’t what it used to be either after he was in some highly praised films. To me that says he might be difficult to work with. Norton definitely did it to himself. He says he wanted to make a better film but film is a collaboration and Feige was still the boss. He’s another one even beyond Marvel who has seen his career take a slide. Norton’s a great talent so the only real answer is he’s not easy to work with. That’s only tolerated if a star is making the studios big money. Once that stops that kind of behavior isn’t tolerated. None of the big screen Banners have been dead on right to me. Sometimes Norton was better sometimes Bana sometimes Ruffalo. I didn’t think Ruffalo was particularly good in Infinity War though. Before that I thought he was usually pretty good with his best performance being in the first Avengers movie. Bixby is still by far the best imo and when he was younger he really looked the part. Bixby was best at combining humanity with compassion suffering and intelligence. He also seemed credible with the science babble or technobabble. Ruffalo really seemed to have trouble with that at times. The chemistry between the two Rhodeys is definitely different. Cheadle comes off as a 'straight man'- but I have/had a hard time why a rebel like Stark would hang out with a boy scout, and it felt like Stark's force of personality could easily roll over Cheadle's 'nice guy'. On the flip side, Howard came off as someone who was a military guy who bent the rules for Stark because I could picture Stark having fun being able to tap into a rebelious streak that I pictured Howard's Rhodey having.... but just like Scarjo, I've gotten used to Cheadle enough by this point. Norton has had a few too many directors it seems who have complained about working with him. It's really unfortunate as Norton I still think was the closest to what I pictured Banner as being. Ruffalo seems like a nice guy, but in the comics Banner always seemed rail-thin and fragile looking, which Norton fit the bill as physically imo. Whedon's casting of Olsen and Ruffalo was ... ok.... but, that casting isn't nearly as strong in my opinion as the casting for the 'big three' (Thor/ Iron Man/ Captain America) - or the two newer Avengers- Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange and Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 9, 2018 13:47:53 GMT -5
The chemistry between the two Rhodeys is definitely different. Cheadle comes off as a 'straight man'- but I have/had a hard time why a rebel like Stark would hang out with a boy scout, and it felt like Stark's force of personality could easily roll over Cheadle's 'nice guy'. On the flip side, Howard came off as someone who was a military guy who bent the rules for Stark because I could picture Stark having fun being able to tap into a rebelious streak that I pictured Howard's Rhodey having.... but just like Scarjo, I've gotten used to Cheadle enough by this point. Stark hangs out with Cheadles Rhodes because he’s clearly a guy who keeps him out of trouble. Howard came off more as a guy that covered for him after he did something stupid. Cheadle is more the type to talk sense into him not to do anything stupid. Tonys showed time and again he needs a babysitter. That’s what everyone around him was especially Pepper, Stane, and Rhodes. Cheadles Rhodes is anything but a nice guy but yeah he is more of a guy who followed the rules. But he also kicked Starks @ss and took the mark 2 suit in Iron Man 2 after Stark got drunk so I don’t see how you could say Stark would just roll over him. He also shut Sam Wilson down pretty fast during the argument over the accords. Even when Tony causes the Ultron situation Rhodes was one of the first people to point out to Tony how bad it was. Norton wants to have a creative hand in everything but there’s only one captain of the ship and that’s the director. If he wants to have his way he should be a writer/director/producer of his own projects. Don’t just show up and try to pull Star clout. Do what Cruise does or Stallone does. When they come in with positions of authority it goes smoothly. When they begin to second guess or push around the guy in charge we get Judge Dredd or The Mummy. I like Ruffalo and he brings a lot but I think it really depends on the director. The Russo’s had never worked with him before and I think that showed. He and Whedon seemed to work together better. To me Wanda has never been a strong character beyond being unstable or grieving so I think Olsen has brought a lot to a character that’s never really been that fleshed out. I thought she was a standout in Civil War and Infinity War. I just wonder...what the heII happened to her accent? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 9, 2018 19:57:51 GMT -5
The chemistry between the two Rhodeys is definitely different. Cheadle comes off as a 'straight man'- but I have/had a hard time why a rebel like Stark would hang out with a boy scout, and it felt like Stark's force of personality could easily roll over Cheadle's 'nice guy'. On the flip side, Howard came off as someone who was a military guy who bent the rules for Stark because I could picture Stark having fun being able to tap into a rebelious streak that I pictured Howard's Rhodey having.... but just like Scarjo, I've gotten used to Cheadle enough by this point. Stark hangs out with Cheadles Rhodes because he’s clearly a guy who keeps him out of trouble. Howard came off more as a guy that covered for him after he did something stupid. Cheadle is more the type to talk sense into him not to do anything stupid. Tonys showed time and again he needs a babysitter. That’s what everyone around him was especially Pepper, Stane, and Rhodes. Cheadles Rhodes is anything but a nice guy but yeah he is more of a guy who followed the rules. But he also kicked Starks @ss and took the mark 2 suit in Iron Man 2 after Stark got drunk so I don’t see how you could say Stark would just roll over him. He also shut Sam Wilson down pretty fast during the argument over the accords. Even when Tony causes the Ultron situation Rhodes was one of the first people to point out to Tony how bad it was. Norton wants to have a creative hand in everything but there’s only one captain of the ship and that’s the director. If he wants to have his way he should be a writer/director/producer of his own projects. Don’t just show up and try to pull Star clout. Do what Cruise does or Stallone does. When they come in with positions of authority it goes smoothly. When they begin to second guess or push around the guy in charge we get Judge Dredd or The Mummy. I like Ruffalo and he brings a lot but I think it really depends on the director. The Russo’s had never worked with him before and I think that showed. He and Whedon seemed to work together better. To me Wanda has never been a strong character beyond being unstable or grieving so I think Olsen has brought a lot to a character that’s never really been that fleshed out. I thought she was a standout in Civil War and Infinity War. I just wonder...what the heII happened to her accent? I don't mind what they're done WRITING wise for Rhodey, but physically I felt like Howard as Rhodey wouldn't be someone to mess with, but Cheadle just looks so much like a nice guy that I never really threatened by (maybe it's his thin build?) - so, I'm probably more reacting to the physical impression over the writing of the character. Great point on the RIGHT way to have influence over a movie- do it Cruise's way. Be a producer..... though even with Cruise as producer, the great documentary on DePalma talks about how much a headache it was to have Cruise kind of derail and tie DePalma's hands behind his back on the making of the first Mission Impossible. DePalma talks so much in a matter-of-fact language that it feels like what he's saying is probably the most accurate account, versus emotional sour grapes. Pity.... but, then again- you're right- if in the end it makes buckets of money, studios don't seem to care so much. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 10, 2018 7:51:00 GMT -5
I hear you but Howard was wrong for Rhodes conceptually with the movie they were making. They made Rhodes an Air Force pilot and they aren’t normally big physically imposing guys. If they’d kept him a marine or army chopper pilot or whatever he was in the original comics it might have been different but I don’t buy Howard as a marine either. Cheadle is much closer to that kind of attitude. Howard came off as a little passive and soft to me. The James Rhodes I remember could be pretty in your face if you got him mad but Howard’s always played weasily better. I also thing Cheadles the superior actor but that’s just me.
If an actor is a producer then he’s got more of a vested interest from the other side of the camera. He can develop the film from the start. When directors come on board they feel they should have some creative freedom. It’s not gonna work when both guys come in thinking they have the stroke but have competing visions. What Stallone usually tries to do is more or less ghost direct. Basically hire a guy to sit in the seat while he calls the shots.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 11, 2018 14:06:37 GMT -5
I hear you but Howard was wrong for Rhodes conceptually with the movie they were making. They made Rhodes an Air Force pilot and they aren’t normally big physically imposing guys. If they’d kept him a marine or army chopper pilot or whatever he was in the original comics it might have been different but I don’t buy Howard as a marine either. Cheadle is much closer to that kind of attitude. Howard came off as a little passive and soft to me. The James Rhodes I remember could be pretty in your face if you got him mad but Howard’s always played weasily better. I also thing Cheadles the superior actor but that’s just me. If an actor is a producer then he’s got more of a vested interest from the other side of the camera. He can develop the film from the start. When directors come on board they feel they should have some creative freedom. It’s not gonna work when both guys come in thinking they have the stroke but have competing visions. What Stallone usually tries to do is more or less ghost direct. Basically hire a guy to sit in the seat while he calls the shots. I hear you on the casting and your ressoning- but I think Howard does seem more intimidating physically- and that's why I looked at the Stark/Rhodey relationship in Iron Man #1 as Tony playing with fire with someone who wouldn't bat an eye stopping him. Well, in the end, I guess it's a moot point... but I wish they (imo) had chosen an actor who I felt made me feel like they naturally would have been buddy-buddy as it seems how it's supposed to be. Originally Reeve wanted to direct Superman IV (they should have just let him)- but instead he only got to direct the moon battle, I believe. With Reeve's career not doing so great (according to his memoirs) at that time and the budget giantly slashed- I wouldn't be suprised if there was nothing but fear and panic going on behind the scenes. In light of that, Reeve's performance is even more impressive- but if one reason Sydney Furie refuses to talk about Superman IV is behind the scenes battles, I actually wouldn't rush to judgement if this was an Edward Norton situation.... but while Reeve didn't want to get into details, it might have been nice (for us curious folks) for Reeve himself to have gone into detail about the filming. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 12, 2018 9:02:26 GMT -5
Howard’s a bigger guy but carried himself in a far less imposing manner. He just came off as soft for Rhodes. If that’s what they were going for fine I guess but I think cheadles attitude worked better especially as war machine. A lot of that requires a performance that fits since you can’t even see his face when he’s in the suit.
Reeve’s problem with Superman IV was he didn’t get enough creative control. It seems like he had a hand in developing the story and that’s it. He should have demanded more. Maybe a role as a producer. It’s not like it turned out to be worth it if he’d said no to coming back. I don’t blame him because how could he know the producers would screw him? Cannon had no track record to look back on with massive productions like he assumed it would be. To guys like him and Stallone as well as Mattel on motu they looked like a company that was expanding. Instead they tried to still do it on the cheap just on a larger scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 20, 2018 14:15:37 GMT -5
Howard’s a bigger guy but carried himself in a far less imposing manner. He just came off as soft for Rhodes. If that’s what they were going for fine I guess but I think cheadles attitude worked better especially as war machine. A lot of that requires a performance that fits since you can’t even see his face when he’s in the suit. Reeve’s problem with Superman IV was he didn’t get enough creative control. It seems like he had a hand in developing the story and that’s it. He should have demanded more. Maybe a role as a producer. It’s not like it turned out to be worth it if he’d said no to coming back. I don’t blame him because how could he know the producers would screw him? Cannon had no track record to look back on with massive productions like he assumed it would be. To guys like him and Stallone as well as Mattel on motu they looked like a company that was expanding. Instead they tried to still do it on the cheap just on a larger scale. Canon films in general I have a mixed reaction to. While money-wise they screwed up and their decisions were both impressive and wonky, it was kind of fun seeing these bizzaro hybrids that came out- They definitely had higher ambitions to the sky with getting the "A" list players, but with Troma-esque production values. Most all of the movies that came out were bad- and I'm certainly glad that these model of 'filmmaking' didn't become the standard- but for a short brand of film, I would rather check out a Canon film over a Troma film if in the mood for a bad film. At least they had ambition. Without Canon, it looked like there would be NO Superman IV..... or would there? But, it seems like that at the time, it was the only hope for another Reeve Superman film at the time. Also- Reeve still got a $5 million dollar check that didn't bounce (as far as I know). In regards to Howard/Cheadles--- I think if it had been Cheadles first, then perhaps I would have had less funkiness with the casting change. And/or Cheadles had been more in the shape of a football player like Howard. In any case- the character development for Rhodey has been pretty thin, depsite being crippled (he sure got over it pretty easily judging from the movies)- one weakness of Marvel has been oftentimes being a bit sloppy with the supporting characters and/or inconsistency on how important they really are. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 20, 2018 16:32:22 GMT -5
Cannon films tried to appeal to the mass American market without really understanding it. It was fine for smaller budget movies but once they tried to make it big time their inexperience with certain kinds of things showed.
The difference between Troma and Cannon was Troma made a certain style of film. They knew what they were good at and stuck to it.
Cannon tried to make all kinds of films but they usually didn’t know what they were doing. It was a crap shoot on wether the film would be good or not. They had ambition but again they tried to buy legitimacy instead of earning and had no clue what they were doing when they tried to make it big.
To me companies like Orion or even Carolco did what cannon tried to do but did it the right way. Reeve’s check cleared but it was from two con men who left his career in bad shape with their cheapness and incompetence. Hope that check was worth it because he never had the leverage to make another one like that again thanks to them.
As for Rhodes he wears some kind of Stark exoskeletal leg braces to walk. Kind of a copout but with Stark tech it makes sense.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Dec 20, 2018 17:35:52 GMT -5
Cannon made Runaway Train. An amazing film. Almost too good to be a Golan-Globus film.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 20, 2018 18:45:24 GMT -5
And that’s considered one of the best films they produced. I think that one was down more to the director. Like I said a crapshoot for them because Golan and Globus had no idea what made it work. They released some good films but then they’d release five stinkers after the one good one. They basically gave Van Damme his career.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Dec 21, 2018 22:27:22 GMT -5
And that’s considered one of the best films they produced. I think that one was down more to the director. Like I said a crapshoot for them because Golan and Globus had no idea what made it work. They released some good films but then they’d release five stinkers after the one good one. They basically gave Van Damme his career. Yep, Van Damme owes his career to them. Same with Chuck Norris and Sho Kosugi. |
|
