Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

Harrison Ford said he has no problem with other actors taking over the role of Indiana Jones, just not until he's done with him. But hell, what does he know about Indiana Jones anyway? It's not like he's a random fan with no connection to the production whatsoever.

 

I have no problem with Zod. Michael Shannon is a terrific actor. I'm kind of surprised Snyder is nabbing so many good actors for this.

 

With that said, let's all just look long and hard in the mirror and re-evaluate our lives.

 

Ah, these Shakespeare questions are intriguing. I'd never considered that. Those must be some of the most endlessly reinterpreted characters in history if not THE MOST overdone characters, and I would always welcome the opportunity to see someone else's take on them.

That question about "do we even need another [insert name of superhero] movie?" is something I've thought about for awhile. I remember when "Superman Returns" was about to come out, I was telling a friend who was not very familiar with the character's movie history that I thought it was completely unnecessary because we'd already got two good Superman movies in the past.

With the first two Superman movies, the only things I didn't like were the special effects. In the first one, I hate the 'reverse time by spinning the earth' nonsense so much that I didn't purchase the movie based solely on my disgust towards that scene. In the second one, I think the final battle with Superman against Zod, Ursa, and Non looks too cheesy because of special effects limitations of the time. This made the final scenes anti-climactic for me, but I loved the rest of the movie (and especially Terence Stamp's performance, obviously) enough to buy it and watch it again and again.

Since I thought the only thing about the first two Superman movies that needed drastic improvement was the special effects, I always felt it wouldn't be very disappointing if we never got another Superman movie after "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", because at least we'd got two movies that did the character justice.

I was much more excited about new Batman movies because I didn't think any of the first four really highlighted the character's appeal enough or treated it with the depth that it deserved. Generally with superhero movies and franchises like Star Trek (setting aside studio desire for money), the biggest reason for a reboot seems to be to wash the bad taste out of viewers' mouths left from a lesser installment.

You could argue that further Spider-Man movies are not needed since the first two movies were well done, but then "Spider-Man 3" would be the last word on the franchise, and that's a depressing note to go out on. Same goes for "Star Trek: Nemesis" (by my earlier logic, who cares if one Star Trek movie was awful when there were at least two that were critically acclaimed)?

That's why I've had mixed feelings about Superman reboots. I could never get as worked up as I did about Batman, because I've never thought "I hope someone FINALLY does the character right" since I already liked the Christopher Reeve version. As I've explained, I'm even less convinced that Zod could be done better. The biggest interest for me with a Superman movie is seeing how much more dynamic the special effects can be compared to how they were in the 70s and 80s, and that's not a reason to get very excited about a movie (compared to eagerness to see new actors, writers, and directors exploring the characters).

Okay, I've rambled a bit here, and I apologize to any who may have found this a slog. Let me put it this way and maybe we can leave it at this - to me, Terence Stamp's Zod will always be a beloved performance of a character that can never be equaled or surpassed. He will always be "my Zod". So after this movie comes out, maybe others can have their Zod and he'll still be mine, and that's fine. And just to lighten the mood after all this intense debate, let me just say: All of you people saying Terrence Stamp's Zod isn't perfect are WRONG and should all KNEEL BEFORE (Stamp's) ZOD!

 

Anybody catch this? Shannon talking about getting the role of General Zod.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx8MPa3fECA&feature=player_embedded[/yt]

Best quote from the video:

Shannon comes off as a little wacky and kooky in that video, but I'm sure some of the best actors are like that.

 

Yeah I posted that, but not the youtubelink so thanks!

 

I agree. I have been very happy with the casting so far and it only increases my desire to see this movie..if that could even be possible!

 

He seemed like most hollywood actors, no conection to reality once the money rolls in. He seemed a little arrogant and it seemed like he was annoyed that he had to audition.

 

You know most Hollywood actors personally?

 

If I was dissing someone you'd know it. I was simply countering the argument that the movie is a likely train wreck because actor playing Zod is "unknown" and the actress playing Lois is "ugly." The only dissing being done in that post was by the other guy toward, IMO, a beautiful actress, or at the very least one whom I doubt the vast majority of people would describe as ugly.

I know it sucks, but neither of you guys saw Pearl Harbor? He had a decent-sized secondary role in that. The pilot with the surfboard and the funny voice when they arrived in Hawaii? "Goose" or something like that?

Good thing the argument wasn't that he was well known then. It was that he wasn't unknown to people who stay well-informed on the entertainment industry by virtue of having been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar only two years ago and currently starring in a critically acclaimed HBO series.

Yes, I know not everyone sees HBO, but 28.6 million homes in the US do, making it the most popular premium cable channel. Then it's also available in over 151 countries. So, it's a little hard to argue that he would be an unknown just because he might be unknown to you.

 

^^^
I did see Pearl Harbor...twice over the last 10yrs and he didn't stand out. I mean jeez you aren't even sure if he's "goose" and you're arguing his quantifiable "known-ness".

It was a diss, at the least interpretable as one, or a dig. Surely you can acknowledge that? The posters in these threads following the film are far form cursory fans of the industry. So to say,"...wasn't unknown to people who stay well-informed on the entertainment industry" easily implies at the least a sense of smugness. Cause the posters here are as informed as most sites I visit.

I couldn't tell you all the actors nominated this year. You know why? No one really cares about the runner-up.

Your point is "people who stay informed on the entertainment industry". I'd argue the industry itself is mostly, not entirely but mostly, a separate beast than the final product which is what I'd argue is what people see. People including folks like myself or TooMuchFun. And I'd bet we, along with other movie buffs, still follow more than our fair share of off camera/behind camera actions.

Just cause your assumption of what is or should be known by movie fans isn't shared doesn't mean you have to get huffy.

 

I described his job, what he was carrying when he first appeared, how he spoke, and his name from memory, so it's ridiculous to say I was unsure about his role in the film. They pronounced Goose funny, like Gooze with a "z", so I wasn't sure if it was spelled differently or just pronounced that way.

No, I won't acknowledge it, because it was a direct response to his assertion that the actor was unknown like it was a matter of fact, to which I replied that he's not an unknown to people who keep up on the industry. It's not like being nominated for one of the top four acting awards in the world only two years ago is some obscure thing. It's a perfectly legitimate argument to say that he's not an unknown to people who keep up with the industry reasonably well.

If you want to get overly sensitive about it and take it as a personal slight to you or someone else that's your business, it doesn't mean I have to buy into it.

I also like that you're giving me shit for smugness for saying someone is not unknown to reasonably informed followers of the entertainment industry while defending the guy who called Amy Adams of all people ugly. Why is that not smug?

You know who cares about the runners-up? People who are reasonably well-informed about the entertainment industry.

I wasn't huffy until you started telling me the intent of my words. The worst thing I said in my first post here was about getting his eyes checked, and that was a joke about him thinking Amy Adams was ugly.

 

Didn't think you would. Pride and all.

I'm not upset at all. Just pointing out how words can, and in this case were, interpreted. And I wasn't the first to see that. That you can't acknowledge that says something.

Point to me where I defended the Amy Adams portion...at all...anywhere? I don't agree with him but beauty is very subjective.

If this is you being "not smug" it's not working.

It's the internet and intent doesn't always translate into interpretation.

I have intended to show you how your words were not as you said them. Your feedback is the "now I'm huffy" or changed behavior due to this revelation.


So, anyone up for some new Superman rumors or what??!!!

 

I am! I am!

And honestly, who really cares the actors they're casting are known or unknown just so long they

A.) look right for the part
B.) have the screen presence for their part

AND

C.) most importantly act the holy hell out of their part.

 

^ Amen.

 

I wouldn't say Michael Shannon is an unknown. I think he's known to some audiences. I mean, he's an Academy Award nominated actor- certainly that establishes some credibility and notoriety!

 

Yea, I didn't recognize the name, but, certainly recognize the face

 

I think the real issue here isn't that "someone new is playing Zod", but that the studio went through all the trouble of canning the director from the last film which was heavily influenced by the Donner films, bring a new guy in for a "fresh take" and he ends up using the same villain from the second Donner/Lester film. Are we ever going to get a decent film that moves past the content of the Donner films?

And no, I personally try to ignore the bad 3rd and 4th movies ever existing.

 

That's based on the unjustified assumption that anyone at the studio thought that the basic subject matter of the Singer film was among its commercial shortcomings.

 

Diane Lane hints at Superman story.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76396