Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

Sure there was - from a certain point of view. My point is that Perry White was a disembodied voice who belonged to no racial group. He did not originate in the comics, so for Hillbilly to use the comics as gospel in deciding the character's skin color, is silly.

 

I can see it happening. In fact, I'll write it right now:

 

The only "certain point of view" is yours. He may have been a disembodied voice on the radio, but there's no question the creators envisioned a white male as Chief Editor of a major city newspaper. If anyone in the 1940s thought of depicting a black man on the radio they likely would have used some vocal stereotype to clearly get the idea across.

It may be regrettable, but it's a simple fact that certain character types were not going to be envisioned as anything but white in those long ago days. The same applies to translating the character to comics in the 1940s and '50s---it would not have occurred to anyone then for Perry to be anything other than a white male.

 

Exactly. In the '40s and '50s. Times change. What was the only choice, the 'politically correct' choice (considering the politics of the time) was for the character to be a white male. In 2011 (or 2013) those considerations need no longer apply.

 

One could argue that if the color of Superdude's suit matters, the skin color of the comic characters would matter, too.

Obviously, you can't make Superman a woman, but perhaps, in ten years, Superman's suit will be be black with armor like Nolan-Batman's, and his love interest will be Louis Lane.

 

I don't think we can really judge too much from the performance of SR. Even as a fan of the movie, I have to admit the marketing and trailers were awfully lackluster and uninspiring. I can easily see how the general public would have been turned off from the start-- whether they had any interest in the character or not.

If Snyder can put together a slick, badass, action-packed Superman trailer (which I have no doubt he'll be able to do), I'm sure it will get people's attention in a way SR never did, and get them just as excited about this character as they were about Iron Man or Thor.

It just comes down to making something that actually looks cool and exciting-- something the Marvel movies always manage to do, and SR and GL had serious trouble with.

 

It seems they haven't learned from that mistake and is repeating history with Man of Steel.

 

From what little we've seen I think it's far too soon to make that judgment.

 

I doubt Snyder is going to have any sway in the marketing for Man of Steel. Warner Bros.' marketing department controls the advertising of their films. According to cinematographer Wally Pfister, the director or production crew have little input on the construction of trailers, posters, etc. All the input people like Pfister have is color timing the trailer.

The marketing campaign for Superman Returns was fairly decent if memory serves me correctly. The teaser trailer was poorly received because a much better trailer, that was edited by the film's co-writer, premiered at San Diego Comic-Con just a month or so before. Footage and descriptions had leaked, so people were expecting a much more exciting teaser than the one that was officially released.

However, I think the film's best trailer, the international one, didn't even make it toward mainstream American audiences which was a shame. The theatrical trailer for the film was actually strong, and portrayed a more adventurous and exciting film than the one we received, which was far more meditative and thoughtful. I think a part of the reason why Superman Returns wasn't such a huge hit is largely because it opened against Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Superman Returns received great reviews, and had a solid opening (and ended up earning over $200 million domestic, which is fairly strong). It just didn't make the kind of money Warner Bros. was hoping for, and fans didn't like the film, which didn't bode well for a sequel. A lot of people wonder why Superman Returns didn't get a sequel but Batman Begins did, and besides the difference in budget costs (Returns was budgeted around $185 million; Begins was budgeted at $150 million) the fan reaction to Batman Begins was much more favorable than the reception Superman Returns received. I think that played a somewhat significant factor.

I don't know about that. Like I mentioned before, the theatrical trailers for both Superman Returns and Green Lantern were fairly exciting. Interestingly enough, both films had similar openings at the box office. However, the steep decline for Green Lantern was because audiences clearly didn't connect with the film. The under-performance for Superman Returns was probably due to some audiences favoring the much more action-oriented Pirates sequel that was in theaters at the same time, and had more of a contemporary resonance (i.e. Johnny Depp).

 

Maybe he wasen't established as a white guy in the radio show, but it has been established that way ever since. What's the point in establishing characters if your not going to stand by what has been established. Imean hell, lets just make Superman an asian midget and Lois a tranny named Louis. Lets make Jim Kirk Jane Kirk and have Scotty be a bloody Brit.

Yeah things change over time and I agree it's time to move on past the Doinnerverse, but they should be only minor details. ie. The Daily Planet having online content with blogs or bieng a cable news network or some cobination of paper and tv.

At this point i'm judging the movie and saying it is going to suck, I was just making a complaint. I have not had any complaints until now and really it's more of a concern.

In fact, the more I argue/defend my position, the less I start to care about these changes. The costume is less than what I had hoped for, but I do like the shield and the darker blue.

I think that's all I want to say about it, I think Admiral Young is right in his statements and I hope soon we get a better look at that costume. Moving on.

 

Good - now that we grant that he was not originally established by race, there should be no problem with changing him a second time.

And these are the kinds of preposterous hypotheticals that are always resorted to in discussions of nontraditional casting because the folks objecting can' never come up with an actual example where it's really hurt the credibility or success of a production.

 

Starbuck and Boomer? It didn't hurt the success, but it was done that way. This discussion isn't even about financial success, why do you try to interweave that now?

 

A lot of people don't know this, so it's no particular reflection on you, but for future reference "tranny" is considered a transphobic slur.

 

And "Hillbilly" is considered a racial slur.

 

There is also the character M in James Bond who was traditionally male but has been successfully played by Judi Dench.

 

And there was some media buzz that Bond should be gay and played by Idris Elba recently.

 

^ Not to mention Colin Salmon before that. Directors look at the best people for the role for their films. I truly do not think this is a notion of casting for shock value or whatever else people want to claim. Zach Snyder especially I think doesn't really have a track record of doing that in his previous films. Neither does Chris Nolan.

 

How about Jesus Christ?

 

Franky, I can't imagine a black man whose name is "Perry".

And while we're at it, I can't imagine anyone in their early thirties in the year 2011 who is named Clark or Lois.