Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[Admiral_Young]

^ Once again I agree with Broc.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Broccoli wrote:

---

No.

Yes.

I've never seen an actor who couldn't make a lame bit of dialogue at least a little better than it reads on the page. Not even in community theater. Hell, not even Denise Crosby.

Snyder did an excellent job with Watchmen, and based on that I'm looking forward to this.

[sojourner]

Maybe the "no emotions" line is supposed to be read as sarcasm? It could work that way.

[Broccoli]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Yes.

I've never seen an actor who couldn't make a lame bit of dialogue at least a little better than it reads on the page.

Meet Anakin and Padme. Then again, perhaps nothing could save that first clip. Even the annoying "comments" overlaying the video.

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

^ Once again I agree with Broc.

It's because I'm fucking awesome.

And modest.

sojourner wrote:

---

Maybe the "no emotions" line is supposed to be read as sarcasm? It could work that way.

Generally speaking, a script would indicate that. I suppose it makes no difference now considering it was debunked.

[Admiral_Young]

^ It also has to do with you being right I think we both share similar viewpoints on "Watchmen". I loved the movie, and am only a moderate fan of the book.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Broccoli wrote:

---

Generally speaking, a script would indicate that.

Generally speaking? No. Some writers insert a lot of parentheticals into their dialogue but the practice is not really loved by directors or actors so most use them very sparingly. If delivery isn't indicated by context then it's pretty much open.

[Admiral_Young]

Don't actors sometimes re-write their dialogue or come up with new dialogue depending on who they are? I think a few audio commentaries I've viewed, writers or directors have mentioned this and in very few cases have spoken positively about it. I forgot we are still talking about that debunked scene still lol.

[Broccoli]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Generally speaking? No. Some writers insert a lot of parentheticals into their dialogue but the practice is not really loved by directors or actors so most use them very sparingly. If delivery isn't indicated by context then it's pretty much open.

Yes, Dennis, I realize that. It's also what I meant - generally speaking in those cases where its deemed necessary, such as the line in question.

I thought my indication was clear in that regard. Apparently not.

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

^ It also has to do with you being right

Which is often and always.

[Professor Zoom]

Broccoli wrote:

---

Thus is the problem with fanboys. If Snyder took more liberties with the source material to streamline the comic into a workable movie, then NERDRAGE would happen. Snyder, instead, went to great lengths to make it as faithful as possible (especially with the extended cut [and the extended cut of the extended cut]) and what did he get? NERDRAGE! He was never going to win.

This is why nerds are the worst audience. Fuck nerds.

[CorporalCaptain]

I was disappointed with the film Watchmen. That said, in the world we live in, it was probably the best film possible from the book. The film was faithful to the book, except where it wasn't, and some of the ways it wasn't faithful, obviously minor to some people, ended up being pretty major to me.

But back on topic, that good news/bad news is really beside the point, as none of that need have any bearing on what Man of Steel will be like. Using Watchmen as a gauge of what to expect doesn't go very far, especially since we aren't, AFAIK, discussing the adaptation of a previous single work, as we were in Watchmen.

[Jax]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

This is why nerds are the worst audience. Fuck nerds.

Pretty much agree here, hardcore fans of the source material cannot support film franchises you need a wider base but you need to strike a balance like Nolan did (BB & TDK).

[Set Harth]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Fuck nerds.

Literally, fuck them. Please?

[CorporalCaptain]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Generally speaking? No. Some writers insert a lot of parentheticals into their dialogue but the practice is not really loved by directors or actors so most use them very sparingly. If delivery isn't indicated by context then it's pretty much open.

Why isn't the practice loved?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Why isn't the practice loved?

Most basically, because no one - actors, directors or short-order cooks - likes to be told how to do what they do.

If the essential meaning of dialogue can't be derived from context, most of the time it's badly written.

For example, there are some well-known screenwriters who do put a great deal of camera direction, etc. into their scripts but that too is exceptional - almost any director is going to ignore that kind of thing. Yet beginning writers tend to get the idea that this is somehow the standard and to imitate that idiosyncracy, too.

[davejames]

Jax wrote:

---

Pretty much agree here, hardcore fans of the source material cannot support film franchises you need a wider base but you need to strike a balance like Nolan did (BB & TDK).

I'm no hardcore Watchmen fan (and only actually read the thing a couple weeks before the movie came out), but the movie still struck me as having the completely wrong tone and style from the book.