When are we ever going to see a Supergirl flick?

Up...up...and away....

There is another photoshop floating around online with Elisha Cuthbert as Kara aka Supergirl.....

 

Oy. How soon they forget.

 

...Again, this would've worked when she was in her teens (around and after she did the show Popular Mechanics For Kids, but before she was on 24 and starred in The Girl Next Door).

Sorry guys, but this is the kind of character that should really be done by a teenage girl and not a twenty-year-old woman. What you all want would be like having Harry Potter be played by a 18-year-old man instead of the 12-13 year old that he started out as.

Uh, Supergirl is a waif, most of the time; she looks like most teenage girls, most of the time (and the few times that I've seen her in comic books, her physique isn't any different from other girls her age.) So that point doesn't quite wash with me. Maybe the actress who plays her could be built up a little, but who would really notice or care?

 

^
I mentioned Taylor Momsen(Gossip Girl) who is 16 going on 17 and is very talented...not to mention a very beautiful young lady.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV0g8fbmMgQ[/yt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV0g8fbmMgQ

 

Yes, we get it. Helen Slater was a very attractive Supergirl (although, what is going on with that wall of hair above her forehead?). However, that movie was terrible. Oh, it had its moments, but it was bad then, and it is bad now.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Helen Slater should reprise her role of Supergirl in a potential future movie, but that would just be plain silly.

 

Even Lex Luthor commented on her chest being "unimpressive" the last time she came back.

Though this may be because he's used to a world where no superheroine can get medical insurance because of their pre-existing back problems...

 

How about completely throwing out the Supergirl origin and make her the daughter of Superman? (who is now off in a distant part of the universe for some reason) This could also add some more dramatic tension by dialing her powers down a bit, being half-human.

As for who to cast... Certainly it needs to be someone athletic (no C, D, or E cup needed). Beautiful, but no Megan Fox. Someone who could realistically blend in as a normal person (not a supermodel) when not being Supergirl. And there's no reason why she has to be blonde. Or have long hair.

They simply need to approach the casting process like for the first Superman movie. They need to look at what made Christopher Reeve so perfect for the role.
- He wasn't a star at the time
- He was solidly built, but not a wrester or bodybuilder (looked good in costume, but not out of place in a suit)
- Good looks without being a model

Instead of a Helen Slater type I'd rather go for a Milla Jovovich type. And NO, I AM NOT SUGGESTING HER! Just someone who projects a similar balance of beauty and athleticism.

And the costume needs a serious overhaul as well, but I have probably written enough heresy for one post.

 

I'm saying there's nothing more to do with Supergirl. The movie's been done. They're sure as hell not going to find a better cast. They won't have better effects. The script was awful, sure, but are they really going to find a pulitzer prize winner to write the next one?
Supergirl has been done. Let's move along.

Oh dear god someone feed her a sandwich. And then teach her a little poise.

beautiful, a.
A. adj. Full of beauty, possessing the qualities which constitute beauty.

1. Excelling in grace of form, charm of colouring, and other qualities which delight the eye, and call forth admiration: a. of the human face or figure.

 

^
Whatever.

 

To further exemplarize what I would like to see with a blend of beauty and athleticism - she is not an actress, but someone like her could sell the part:

(http://karthikhce.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/all2.jpg?w=319&h=425)

and the more famous pose: http://www.whattofix.com/images/AllisonStokke.jpg

 

Hmmmmmm....... Not a fan of her music, but not a bad choice.

 

If any thought is meant to be directed toward getting the fans of the comics to see the movie, this is a bad idea. And the movie Kryptonians have dialed down powers to begin with.

While I agree with the athleticism, regardless of the appearance of the secret identity, Supergirl, to appeal to the aforementioned comics fans, and to refer to past characterizations, still must be blonde. And have long hair.

Point for point:
- No, you are correct, he was not a star.
- He needed to work out for several months before shooting began, as he was quite thin. What he was was tall, and handsome.
- You need to do some research. The reason he was considered was his modeling and soap opera career.

QFT

There's nothing wrong with the costume. It doesn't need to be armored or anything, she's Supergirl! And besides, if they go with the bare midriff, the screaming movie fans will die in ecstasy.

 

@ Greg Cox: I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and while I could quibble with one or two things you wrote, won't... except to ask if (provided you thought it was a good idea in the first place) you'd like to see a ScarJo Supergirl now that she's Black Widow. I would've loved to before that casting, but would now vote against it.

No, because we wanted the Harry Potter movies to be faithful to the books. But of those who've commented so far, you and the others pushing for a comics-accurate teen girl at the expense of a bodacious babe are in the considerable minority.

The vast majority of the movie audience that's never seen a Supergirl comic and doesn't give a rat's ass that she's most often portrayed as a teen, that's who.

----------

Here's one vote 100% against a bare midriff... though I would tolerate an exception for battle damage, a la Geonosis Padme.

And yes, she must have long blonde hair. It's just one of those things. IMHO: Supes can be black or mixed-race, but not bald. Lois can be about any race, foreign-born with an accent even, but must be a brunette. Lex Luthor and the Kents must be white. Just one of those things.

 

You really have an inflated opinion of yourself, huh?

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that sticking to the most common portrayals in the comics is the way to go for most comic book movies. It's sort of the point of adapting comic books for the big screen. Adapting doesn't mean completely rewriting and bastardizing everything from the comics, it means changing as little as you can and still make it as believable as possible. Iron Man has been a very good adaptation for that very reason.

The same would be true of Supergirl in my opinion, as well as most other comic book characters. There's plenty of big-boobed superheroes out there. If you're that shallow of a human being, advocate one of them being made for your masturbatory sessions. Leave more realistically and believable built heroes like Supergirl alone, please.

 

But there have been multiple different Supergirls in the comics with multiple different origins. So it's not like comics fandom as a whole is universally loyal to a single origin and would reject any alternative.

On the contrary, past Superman movies have tacked on whatever random or godlike Kryptonian powers they felt like, from planetary rewind powers to hand-fired energy beams to amnesia kisses to rebuild-the-Great-Wall-of-China vision.

In S:TAS, Supergirl was less powerful than Superman, largely because she was younger and smaller, but perhaps partly because she was from an offshoot species from Argo rather than Krypton (since DC was adamant at that point about Superman being the only survivor). So there's precedent for a portrayal where she's less powerful than Superman.

I think what Hyperspace05 meant is that the actress doesn't have to have long blonde hair already. Hair can grow out, be dyed, or be covered by a wig.

Although if the character's going to be blonde, I'd rather the actress be blonde. I find most women look better with their natural hair color. (Though I'll grant that ScarJo makes a spectacular redhead.)

Still, they should probably avoid the micro-miniskirt of some comics representations. She's a teenage girl who flies. To avoid being prurient, they should probably put her in shorts instead. Or culottes, to preserve the skirtlike appearance.

Can't speak for Greg, but personally I have no objection to one actor/actress playing multiple comics characters. It happens all the time in animation. Tara Strong has been Batgirl, Raven, Huntress, Billy Batson, the Invisible Woman, the Scarlet Witch, X-23, Marrow, and the Stepford Cuckoos. Jennifer Hale has been Black Cat, Mary Jane Watson, Jean Grey, Zatanna, Giganta, Killer Frost, Inza, and Emerald Empress. Phil LaMarr has been Static, Green Lantern, Steel, S.T.R.I.P.E., Gambit, Bolivar Trask, Randy and Robbie Robertson, and Fancy Dan. John Di Maggio has been Sandman, Hammerhead, Brother Blood, Aquaman, Gorilla Grodd, Ubu, and Black Adam and will be heard as the Joker in the next DC Universe DVD movie. And there are plenty of others. If someone's good at playing comic-book characters, why not reuse them?

As for Ms. Johanssen herself, she's a stunning beauty, but she has yet to impress me much as an actress. I'm not convinced she could pull off a leading role.

I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. And I don't think the majority of men would believe they are. There are plenty of people on this BBS who frequently express admiration for young actresses (in a look-but-don't-touch kind of way, of course). And there are certainly a number of 18-to-22ish actresses who could credibly pass for a mature 16 or 17.

Besides, how shallow would one have to be to think this film should be cast only on the basis of "bodacious"-ness? We're not talking about a porn film here. While casting for attractiveness is naturally a given in just about any film, surely talent, charisma, and suitability for the character should be the priorities.

Supergirl hasn't only been portrayed in comics. In fact, there are probably far more people out there who know the character from S:TAS/JLU and Smallville than from the comics, since far more people watch television than read comic books. And she was definitely portrayed as a teen in the former, at least.

Besides, even without prior familiarity, I think most audiences would be puzzled if a character named Supergirl were played by a 26-year-old woman.

 

I'm not a big ScarJo fan, and she wouldn't be my first choice for Supergirl, but not because she's played the Black Widow. If DC wants her to play another superhero or super-villainess in some future film, her IRON MAN credit should not disqualify her. (Heck, if Downey can play IRON MAN and SHERLOCK HOLMES and now the Wizard of Oz, why can't ScarJo play the Black Widow and, say, Poison Ivy?)

Regarding Supergirl, I think the Taylor Swift suggestion is brilliant. She looks the part, she's likable, and she would probably sell tickets . . . .

Just cast Kanye West as Lex Luthor, out to steal her glory!

 

I have no idea who this "Taylor Swift" is, but judging from this picture she looks like a bucktoothed inbred hillbilly.
Supergirl should have a natural, innocent beauty. At the time, Helen Slater was an inspired choice.

 

The first movie was shit. Why can't they try to make a good one?

Besides, your logic makes no sense. Why do any new superhero movies ever? They made a Superman serial. No need to ever do anything with the character ever again. Time to move on!

Well, only if she is playing a 26 year old Supergirl. While I doubt audiences will be puzzled (for better or worse, the word "girl" is a very broad term), the actor could be 26, but be playing someone who is in her teens. That seems to happen all the time in Hollywood.

At the time, Helen Slater was random pretty blond actress #155468 who has since disappeared into obscurity.

 

But that doesn't seem to be what Gaith was advocating. He seems averse to the idea of Supergirl being played by someone who even looks like a teenager, instead pushing for a more mature-looking woman. I'm saying that regardless of the actress's actual age, the youthful look that Gaith is decrying as undesirable is instead the optimal look for this particular character.

Whether she was famous at the time or subsequently has nothing to do with whether she was an inspired choice for the character. After all, Christopher Reeve was all but unknown when he was cast as Superman.

I think Helen Slater was very well-cast in the part, quite lovely and likeable, and whatever can be said about her career in hindsight, I seem to recall that there was a great deal of hype around her for a time as a result of Supergirl.

Although I certainly don't agree that the existence of one Supergirl movie should prohibit the existence of others. We need more female-centered superhero films. And Supergirl deserves a film wherein she gets to save the world rather than just fight over a man.