Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 04-11-2011, 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Soloist View Post
Lex Luthor NEEDS to be in this film, but since it is the first one out of most likely three, Luthor should just be in a couple of scenes and should be a background character.
Why? Why does he NEED to be in this film? From what I understand, Lex Luthor wasn't a ubiquitous character until the popularity of the Donner films. So really it was a Superman movie that started the trend of Luthor being everywhere, and a new Superman movie could change that trend.

After The Dark Knight we started seeing Joker's scars in the comic books, I'm sure we could see some changes in Superman canon if the new films are popular enough. Just because a character is completely overused in the comics doesn't mean the movies should do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 04-11-2011, 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboJoeBob View Post
Really not MOS related, but am I the only one that would like to see a Superman movie that's seen through Lex Luthor's eyes?

I don't think a comic movie has ever been made where we see things from the villain's point of view. And I think this would be pretty epic if done right.
I Agree. I think maybe the closest thing we have to that is the movie "Megamind". But yeah, I see where you are coming from.
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 04-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboJoeBob View Post
Really not MOS related, but am I the only one that would like to see a Superman movie that's seen through Lex Luthor's eyes?

I don't think a comic movie has ever been made where we see things from the villain's point of view. And I think this would be pretty epic if done right.
You mean like this:



That run on action, starring Lex Luthor, was one of the best books DC published. A superman book, without superman in it, and starring the "villian". Very cool concept.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Why? Why does he NEED to be in this film? From what I understand, Lex Luthor wasn't a ubiquitous character until the popularity of the Donner films. So really it was a Superman movie that started the trend of Luthor being everywhere, and a new Superman movie could change that trend.
That's actually kind of a half truth. Luthor is as old as it gets, as he was the first of all supervillians (first appearance was a couple of weeks before the Joker in April 1940, so he's over 70 years old). However, there is some debate on this issue. My comic book store guy doesn't recognize Luthor as first, because the character that appeared in 1940 is a mad scientist named "Luthor", he didn't even get a first name for another twenty years, and he had a full head of red hair at first. Unlike the Joker, who was a supervillian from the first, and is still very recognizable as the same character today that he was in 1940, Luthor was just a mad scientist of the week back in the day. His origin story wasn't even written until 1960, when he became Superman's "arch-enemy", due to his interactions with a young Clark Kent in the Superboy comics (so yes, "Smallville" isn't raping the canon of Superman, they're just going back to silver age Superboy comics).

I actually think the Donner films did more to take Lex Luthor back than they did to move him forward. The Lex that we know today is cunning, and always has a big, purple battlesuit stashed away somewhere in the back room. That wasn't the donner-verse lex, but donner did a lot to establish the tradition. I do think this has been to the detriment of the character, as its resulted in a reluctance to use the vast array of Superman's rogues. If Burton had used the Joker in Batman Returns, we might have the same issue with Batman.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Why? Why does he NEED to be in this film? From what I understand, Lex Luthor wasn't a ubiquitous character until the popularity of the Donner films. So really it was a Superman movie that started the trend of Luthor being everywhere, and a new Superman movie could change that trend.

After The Dark Knight we started seeing Joker's scars in the comic books, I'm sure we could see some changes in Superman canon if the new films are popular enough. Just because a character is completely overused in the comics doesn't mean the movies should do the same.
Because Lex isn't just one of Superman's villains, he is crucial to the Superman mythos. He very much an ever present character in Supes world. He's a billionare industrialist/philanthropist who later even becomes the President of the U.S. for a time. Lex doesn't have to have any actual interaction with Superman, but he has to appear in some sort of capacity, even if, considering this will probably be another origin story film, its just him reacting to Superman's arrival on the scene....

Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
You mean like this:

That run on action, starring Lex Luthor, was one of the best books DC published. A superman book, without superman in it, and starring the "villian". Very cool concept.
I expected you to recommend this book:

Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Because Lex isn't just one of Superman's villains, he is crucial to the Superman mythos. He very much an ever present character in Supes world. He's a billionare industrialist/philanthropist who later even becomes the President of the U.S. for a time. Lex doesn't have to have any actual interaction with Superman, but he has to appear in some sort of capacity, even if, considering this will probably be another origin story film, its just him reacting to Superman's arrival on the scene....
One thing about this. Lex has a huge part in Superman's origin story. People who are new to comics watch Smallville and cringe at the idea of Lex Luthor in Smallville with a young Clark Kent, but the fact is, back in the Silver Age (roughly 1960 - 1985) that was the status quo in Superboy comics. Back then, "Superboy" wasn't Conner Kent, or some other boy version of Superman, it was Clark Kent, as a boy, growing up in Smallville. The book was so popular, that DC created the Legion of Superheroes so that young Clark Kent could have a superhero team to lead pre-Justice League.

Lex was very much involved with that, and he even saved a young Clark Kent from Kryptonite, so there is a basis for the idea that they were once friends (as they are for the bulk of Smallville). So, if you are going to do a Superman origin story, that goes "back to the farm", if you want to stay true to Silver Age roots, you need Lex. This is the way the Smallville TV show went. More modern adaptations of the origin story have ditched this silver age feature. John Byrness's Man of Steel (published in 1985) has, to my knowledge (I've only read the first issue of that run) no Lex in the origin story. It also has only green K (no red K, no gold K, no silver K, etc. Byrness hated the multi-colored kryptonite that dominated the silver age. Smallville uses this silver age plot device liberally) Birthright (2003-2004) doesn't introduce Lex until Clark is applying for a job at the daily planet. Secret files and origins (2009) is a more classic retelling of the origin story.

So, I guess my point would be, this could go both ways. Smallville chose a very specific way of presenting the mythos. They chose to go with a very Silver Agey, very Superboy comics feel to the show. This is partly because Jeph Loeb, a big Silver Age geek, was a producer for many years. Some people like that (I do, for one), and many people vomit, and think its a betrayal of "their" Superman (which is post-Man of Steel, in fact, Smallville is actually based on something older). While I do agree that Lex is a key character to the mythology, I could see a way to present it that didn't use Lex at all. This is probably inpractical given the success of the TV show, and the idea, now popular, that Lex was there from the beginning. Omit Lex from an origin story, and people who are fans of Smallville will scratch their heads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
I expected you to recommend this book:

Am I that transparant? Am I that obvious?

Lex Luthor Man of Steel is excellent. I just thought I'd go with the more recent Action Comics run, because that book is available right now (I think the run just finished) Man of Steel is very good, and it represents Azz's best Superman (didn't care for his run on Superman with Jim Lee).
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:49 AM
god Michael Shannon is awesome, check out this video of him talking about supes...

http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-sha...l/#more-102034
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 04-12-2011, 09:17 AM
We're now up to the sixth Superman movie, and we've only had two main comic book villains.

I'm sure Shannon will be amazing as Zod, but dammit I want someone new. I'd take Mr. Mxyzptlk at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 04-12-2011, 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
god Michael Shannon is awesome, check out this video of him talking about supes...

http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-sha...l/#more-102034
I was just on my way to post that video in this thread, hilarious stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 04-12-2011, 01:31 PM
I love the Michael Shannon casting. The cast is rounding out pretty nicely, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 04-12-2011, 03:14 PM
I haven't had an opinion about Michael Shannon because I was under the impression that I hadn't seen any of his movies, but I just checked IMDB and I've seen FIVE movies that he's in. Groundhog Day, Tigerland, Pearl Harbor, Vanilla Sky, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. I can't remember his performances in any of them.
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 04-12-2011, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
god Michael Shannon is awesome, check out this video of him talking about supes...

http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-sha...l/#more-102034
That video is great. If I wasn't already before, I'm def a fan now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
I haven't had an opinion about Michael Shannon because I was under the impression that I hadn't seen any of his movies, but I just checked IMDB and I've seen FIVE movies that he's in. Groundhog Day, Tigerland, Pearl Harbor, Vanilla Sky, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. I can't remember his performances in any of them.
He only really had bit parts in all of those, I believe.

Check out Bug, My Son My Son What Have Ye Done? or the HBO series Boardwalk Empire. He's great in all those. Also, he was nominated for an Oscar for Revolutionary Road, but I haven't seen that yet....

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 04-12-2011 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 04-12-2011, 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
god Michael Shannon is awesome, check out this video of him talking about supes...

http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-sha...l/#more-102034
I love this guy. He is best in Bug and Revolutionary Road.

In my wildest geek dreams he would be Heaths replacement for The Joker. I mean come on, Shannon would KICK ASS as the Joker. Guess I'll settle for Zod...
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
I haven't had an opinion about Michael Shannon because I was under the impression that I hadn't seen any of his movies, but I just checked IMDB and I've seen FIVE movies that he's in. Groundhog Day, Tigerland, Pearl Harbor, Vanilla Sky, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. I can't remember his performances in any of them.
Go watch Revolutionary Road (which he was nominated for an Oscar). Just an awesome performance. Also, he is really good in Bug even though a lot of critics dogged on it.
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 04-12-2011, 11:32 PM
One other quick thought on the Shannon as Zod thing. I've not seen his work, but generally speaking, it seems like the feedback on this has been positive, so I'll go with it. However, casting him as Zod does speak to what I think is one of the biggest issues in cinema today: risk aversion. The reason why Zod will be the villian in this movie, and not, say, General Lane and Metallo is because Zod is tested: he's been in a movie before, and audiences liked what they saw. Metallo is new, so is General Lane.

For me, the best Superman villian right now is Darkseid, but he has several strikes: he's never been in a picture, and, he's got a lot of fantastical elements to his story. Maybe if Thor does well, we'll see Darkseid sometime down the road, because, after all, if it does well, its copied.
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
Go watch Revolutionary Road (which he was nominated for an Oscar). Just an awesome performance.
Seconded.
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:01 AM
I hated Bug but I will say that he gave a very committed performance. But like the movie itself it just goes SO over the top to the point of being a real turn off. But I'm not sure I can really fault his performance. It was more of a direction and writing problem than anything else.

I do want to see Revolutionary Road. Haven't and been meaning to since I love Sam, I love Kate and I love Leo. And I was really interested in seeing Kate and Leo back together for the first time since Titanic especially since they had phenomenal chemistry together in that movie.
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 04-15-2011, 09:08 PM
So, some new tidbits for Man of Steel, curteousy of latino review (who seems to be very on the ball about this stuff):

Latino Review on Man of Steel

I read the article via AICN, and the part that got to me was Merrick's comment on the thing:

Quote:
I do wholly understand the knee-jerk compulsion to reintroduce the mythos all over again, and "re-start" SUPERMAN in an effort to distance this new picture from what has come before. This said, I stand firm by my assessment that an overwhelming majority of folks who would see a new SUPERMAN movie would already be aware enough of...or tuned-in enough to...the origin and mythos driving the concept and feel the world is more than ready for a SUPERMAN film that...just starts. With its characters in place, with the only new introductions being whatever roles are new and specific to that film. And build from there. 'Twould save so much time and distraction.
I know that this is how the majority of posters on this site seem to feel about the issue. I, frankly, do not feel this way. I would not re-tell the origin to "distance myself from what has come before", if it were me, I'd re-tell the origin for a very different reason. I do agree that re-telling a story just to differentiate yourself from something isn't a very good reason to re-tell the story.

Part of the problem with comments like these is that it implies that the well has run dry. We know Superman's origin, there's no reason to tell it again, or that stuff is just boring. I think that's a faulty assumption. Also, implied in that assumption is the idea that you can't have a good Superman origin story, and have a good action movie (its in there). An assumption that I don't buy. Good origin story and good action movie aren't mutually exclusive.

I actually think the reverse is true: I think you can have an even bigger action movie by going back to the origin, because you have more room to play with. Told right, it can also be an even better film than just an action movie, because you have real dramatic tension caused by a solid story. Ask yourself this: what was the best part of Batman Begins? For me, it was the first half, where he was becoming Batman. The actual final action scene, the train chase to stop Ra's from vaporizing the city's water supply, seemed anti-climatic, because you knew how it was going to end. Nolan was smart in elaborating on the origin, because that was where his story had wiggle room. The ending? Batman has to punch the bad guy in the face. One of the reasons why I love the Dark Knight so much is that its a superhero movie where the hero doesn't punch the bad guy in the face at the end.

Like I've said many times on this site, if it were up to me, I'd just go back to Krypton and do the whole first movie about that planets last days, and re-tell that story with some really cool action scenes that spring to mind easily (General Zod and his troops paratrooping down to the planet to stop Brainiac from destroying Kandor, in his spaceship, complete with a hundred Brainiac drones. Cool) However, its not up to me, and while I, and all the hardcore Superman fanboys would dig that movie, it might not be everyone's cup of tea. Structurally, the problem is that you know how that story ends: the planet blows up, Kandor gets shrunk down, and the rocketship flies off into space. However, that story, told right, would be amazing to watch. For me, it would be interesting to see how we got to that conclusion.

Anyhoo, one last thing. I don't have a lot of faith in Zack Synder as a filmmaker. 300 was the best film he's made that I've seen, and I don't think he's the right creative mind for this film. I like that Nolan is producing, but I don't know how extensive his involvement is. They've gotten a lot of the casting right, but I still remain skeptical. I just can't get over the fact that WB is making this to keep the rights. It tells me they don't have an idea they like, but rather, that they're making this just to beat a deadline.
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 04-16-2011, 03:14 PM
I def agree with Soda. I believe the origin is the key to making a really grea superman film.The problem most people have with superman is that they just cant feel for the guy.He is like a god on earth with pretty much limitless powers (stated previously in this forum) and basically unmatched. So its hard to feel for him.I feel the origin can help make a emotional connetion with superman and the viewers so that you understand how suoerman feels about the situation he is in. *being the last Kryptonian and basically being alone as well as different from everyone else he loves*

I feel a Krypton film would be awesome. It would be more of a sci fi action flick with some powers but it would be EPIC. Krypton pretty much had a civil war its last days. It could star Supermans Father as he struggles to save the planet from evil forces manipulating events that would lead to its destruction.They wouldnt have to go exactly with the comic book cannon. Making tweeks where they would be appropriate and interesting yet keeping the vital things intact.

Familiar villians would be used ofcourse. Braniac, Gen. Zod,Jor-El,heck maybe even Lobo or Darkseid (possibly manipulating the events for his own benefit in some way.)

Krypton would visualy attract so many people do to the visuals they would have to make to show it properly on screen. krypton was advanced in every way compared to earth and they had many beast that would add to the visuals. It was mentioned to have been beautiful until the events leading to its destruction started taking place. I can imagine a silver screen version blowing peoples breathe away.

I understand peoples thoughts that telling the origin again would be boring.But people have to make the appropraite changes to make it fresh. Small changes in various areas to make it seem familiar yet new.The film COULD start from superman being a hero allready. But it wouldnt allow the viewer to grow attached to the character and actually feel for him. Other super heroes are compelling because their origins make you feel for them.(Examples:Spiderman,Batman). I think the real task at hand is making people feel some compassion for superman.Truely making that connection with the viewr and the character.The origin is how that coud be done...

btw good post Soda.I agree to the max!
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 06-15-2011, 05:33 PM
some interesting casting:

RUSSELL CROWE has officially been cast as Jor El, Supermans biological Father!
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:27 PM
this cast rivals the batman film cast

Diane Lane
Russell Crowe
Kevin Costner
Michel Shannon
Amy Adams
Henry Cavill



not to mention 5 oscar nominees
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:02 PM
Definitely loving the cast!
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 06-16-2011, 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Definitely loving the cast!
I absolutely love this cast. With this news and the promise of real action this time around, I'm fully on board for this one. Bring it on!
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 06-16-2011, 04:41 AM
Great cast,and i know the effects will be terrific and hopefully the story will be strong
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:32 PM
Julia Ormond(The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) in talks For Lara
Quote:
EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros and Zack Snyder are in talks with Julia Ormond to play Superman's Kryptonian mother, Lara Lor-Van, in Man of Steel. I expect the deal to make shortly. Russell Crowe has been offered the role of Jor-El, the father of Superman (Henry Cavill). Kevin Costner and Diane Lane were previously set to play Clark Kent's Earthbound parents. This comes after Ormond completed the role of Vivian Leigh in the Simon Curtis-directed My Week With Marilyn, which stars Michelle Williams, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper and Kenneth Branagh. Ormond's repped by Gersh and Artists Independent.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/juli...supermans-mom/
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 06-23-2011, 08:42 PM
Ilove thecast so far but i really dont see Snyder's Film style doing well for a superman film. I have hope tho
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 06-23-2011, 09:56 PM
according to snyder he is changing his style for this film he said superman will be a documentary in comparison to his other work and wants superman to be his most realistic film to date
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 06-23-2011, 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by project 86 View Post
according to snyder he is changing his style for this film he said superman will be a documentary in comparison to his other work and wants superman to be his most realistic film to date
really? sounds cool. I knew his previous style wouldnt work im glad he noticed the same thing. Im way more excited about this.thanks for the info
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 06-23-2011, 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by project 86 View Post
according to snyder he is changing his style for this film he said superman will be a documentary in comparison to his other work and wants superman to be his most realistic film to date
Link please. Cause I'd love to read about this change of style.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 06-23-2011, 11:45 PM
When asked which documentary and filmmaker he was most influenced by in this decision, Snyder replied, "All of them. I watched all of them."
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 06-24-2011, 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
When asked which documentary and filmmaker he was most influenced by in this decision, Snyder replied, "All of them. I watched all of them."
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 06-24-2011, 12:13 AM
I just read this whole thread, and I wanna backtrack just a skoch. Sorry if I'm going back to stuff you guys are tired of talking about, but I had a couple thoughts throughout the whole Soda / adamjohnson / Smiert back and forth about the pros and cons of Superman.

One of the most intriguing things about Supes, to me, is how the world would react to him. As far as I know that's never really been explored. Imagine if it really happened, I mean in this world right here, the real one. Imagine how absolute bat-shit insane all of humanity would go if Superman actually showed up one day flying around saving people. Look at it this way: ours is a society where one half of the people worship celebrities, and the other half are understandably disgusted by that worship and go out of their way to shit on anything celeb-oriented. Magnify that times 1000, and that's how humanity would react to Superman. With a real world Superman, Lex Luthor wouldn't be the odd man out in his hatred, he'd be just one among millions.

In every Superman story I've ever seen or read, humanity in general just automatically takes Supes at face value and embraces him as a hero. I don't think it would really happen that way. Now I'm not saying there should be some sort of X-Men angle about him saving a society that hates him, 'cuz that's not what Superman stories are supposed to be about thematically, but I would just love to see that touched on. I'd like to see him stop a plane crash, lower it to the ground, and watch half the people around him run screaming in terror or start rioting en masse. The psychological impact that Superman's existence would have would quite possibly drive a whole lot of people insane. Think about all the things it would say about religion, science, everything we think we know and understand, it would all be thoroughly destroyed by the arrival of this alien who is unimaginably powerful. I know it's awesome to imagine a world with a Superman because we know the character so well, but if it REALLY happened, my god it would be absolutely terrifying.

Anyway, that's just a whole sidebar and has very little to do with an actual movie or anything so I apologize. I just got to thinking about that when the discussion of what Superman's goal should be, his equivalent of "saving Gotham." I think Superman's goal is probably to live in a world that doesn't need him anymore, where people are good enough and kind enough to where he can just chill with Lois. That's not a selfish motivation, in fact it's about as altruistic as they come. He could rule us all with an iron fist but instead he just wants to be one of us, and wants humanity to take care of itself to such a degree that he doesn't need to be Superman anymore. The more realistic among us know that that's never going to happen, but I think it pretty much defines the "never ending battle." Just because his goal is pretty unrealistic and unattainable doesn't make it any less significant than Batman's. The fact that his goal has very little to do with himself actually makes it more interesting. Here's this guy who can move mountains and catch asteroids, but he cannot change humanity and the only people who can actually achieve his ultimate goal is us.

In the comics and movies the world has embraced Superman and accepted him as our hero (disregard what I said before about his effect on the real world, that was just a weird rant and I know Superman causing mass hysteria isn't what anyone wants to see). So it seems to me that how he's perceived would be one of the most important things to him, he would want to inspire people to be better so that someday they won't need him anymore. The flip side of that coin is the thing that can make him seem weak, the idea that humanity can be absolutely corrupted and for all his power there is nothing he can do about it. The last season of Smallville used that brilliantly with Darkseid, and I agree with Soda in that that would be the perfect villain and the perfect angle. I'd just tone down the stuff with Apokolips. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the way Smallville used Apokolips was great, just a big floating scary-ass thing in the sky but the actual threat was more grounded. The problem with cosmic stories is that half your audience is going to be immediately turned off by the immensity of it. But the way Smallville did it was perfect.

Obviously that's not going to happen, at least not in this one. Zod is going to be the villain and unlike most of you I actually dig that idea. Sure we've seen him before but he's not overplayed and absolutely run into the ground like Luthor. We'd seen the Joker before too in a few incarnations, but we sure forgot all about that when we watched TDK. Also, fact: any movie with Michael Shannon in it is automatically 70% more watchable. That guy is an absolutely brilliant actor. That interview you guys posted illustrates that even more, since his for-reals demeanor is kinda reminiscent of Norm Macdonald and not at all how he plays on the screen. There's something just chilly and sinister about him, even when he's not really playing that type of role (like in 8 Mile or World Trade Center). He just seems a bit off, without even trying, which is why I think he'll be perfect for Zod. You guys were saying he'd make a better Luthor but I disagree wholeheartedly. Luthor is confident and brash and all that, sure, but he shouldn't come across as odd in that way. In fact he should be charismatic and very likable when he wants to be. That's why you guys' idea of Michael C Hall is the most brilliant bit of casting I've ever seen. It's right up there with Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, the kind of thing that is so perfect and obvious once it's been pointed out to you that you feel like a dummy for not thinking of it yourself.

Anyway, I realize this post has kinda been all over the place but that's 'cuz I'm trying to fit my thoughts on 27 pages of stuff into one post. I'm not the slightest bit disappointed in Zod's presence in this movie, especially with that casting, and actually think he might be perfect for Superman's reintroduction or whatever. He's powerful enough that he's a real threat to Supes physically, but not so large-scale that audiences will have a problem buying it. To be honest this movie hasn't even been on my radar, but for some reason today I decided to read this thread and am now really looking forward to it. Apologies again for the somewhat aimless ramblings.
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 06-24-2011, 02:22 AM
The only thing I would ask of Snyder is to cut back from the slow motion. I know he loves it, but he never really does it particularly well with the exception of a few great scenes in Watchmen.

Unfortunately, asking Snyder to cut back the slow motion is probably like asking Michael Bay to cut back on the quick-cuts.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 06-24-2011, 09:26 AM
I actually want an all out action Superman movie...a movie where he is beaten to a bloody pulp.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 06-24-2011, 11:46 AM
I like Snyder's movies, except for Sucker Punch which I haven't seen. I'm hopeful this will be a good, entertaining movie.
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 06-24-2011, 11:48 AM
I'm excited for this movie, but some of that casting has me doing a double take and saying "WTF".

I guess it's nice to have all these big names playing small roles... but I can't help but think the money would be much much better spent on actually making the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 06-24-2011, 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Link please. Cause I'd love to read about this change of style.
http://www.screened.com/news/superma...-villian/1959/
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:34 PM
Christopher Meloni Eyed for Major Role
Quote:
Christopher Meloni, who a month ago surprised everyone by exiting his longtime home as co-star of NBC's Law & Order: SVU, is in line for a big-time follow-up. I hear he is in negotiations for a major role in Man Of Steel, the Superman franchise reboot from Warner Bros that Zack Snyder is directing. No word yet on what part he might get, though. He would join such big-name players as Russell Crowe, Julia Ormond, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane in the film, which stars Henry Cavill as Superman and Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Meloni is repped by Gersh and Industry Entertainment.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/chri...-man-of-steel/

Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 06-26-2011, 06:25 PM
I could see him making a fine Perry White.
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 06-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
I could see him making a fine Perry White.
Indeed, but I don't think its who he's playing, for some reason.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump