DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
This much is true. I'm pretty sure that if Snyder were ever exposed to that much color, he would crumble to dust like a vampire at sunrise.
I'm actually going to have to side with @kirk55555 for once, these are the kind of roles that actors tend to take on for the character, not the people behind the scenes. They have to know from the beginning that they are going to be working with multiple directors, so their interest isn't going to be due to working with a specific director.
Now, I can see being upset over the change in JL directors, since at that point they'd already done at least one movie with Snyder and went into JL expecting to do another. So it makes sense they would be frustrated when they had a sudden change like that thrown at them part way through production.
It's entertaining to see how many people "just know" why any actor would A) take a role and B) whether they care about what type of role it is.
Community theatre actors show a greater degree of care about whom they work with and what roles they might get than people seem to think professionals do. (I was a stage manager for community theatre for several years--I observed the way the actors were invested in their options from a close vantage point--and even then, I wouldn't presume to know what motivates any specific actor).
Of course, some just see acting as a paying gig, and don't get too attached--much like session musicians for recording sessions. But that's hardly universal. Whether anyone wanted to work with Snyder specifically beforehand, having such a jarring transition can easily be unpleasant (even if they otherwise had no issue with Whedon). Projecting one's own opinion of a filmmaker (from the POV of a viewer of the end product) offers precisely ZERO insight into how people working with that filmmaker think of him or her.
Community theatre actors show a greater degree of care about whom they work with and what roles they might get than people seem to think professionals do. (I was a stage manager for community theatre for several years--I observed the way the actors were invested in their options from a close vantage point--and even then, I wouldn't presume to know what motivates any specific actor).
Of course, some just see acting as a paying gig, and don't get too attached--much like session musicians for recording sessions. But that's hardly universal. Whether anyone wanted to work with Snyder specifically beforehand, having such a jarring transition can easily be unpleasant (even if they otherwise had no issue with Whedon). Projecting one's own opinion of a filmmaker (from the POV of a viewer of the end product) offers precisely ZERO insight into how people working with that filmmaker think of him or her.
Well, I'm basing what I said from what I've seen in interviews and things like that. Most of the time, from what I've seen and read, it seems like with these kind of roles, it's more about wanting to play Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or Captain America than it is about the behind the scenes people involved.
Throwing my 2c in, for what it’s worth, given that Affleck for years distanced himself from Daredevil and said that he had no interest in playing a superhero again, I think it’s at least likely that he agreed to play Batman because he was sold on Snyder’s particular take on the character. And I say so as someone who thinks that Whedon is much more talented than Snyder.
Disagree. I think he was sold with the promise of directing and starring in his own Batman movie. Justice League was the necessary evil for control on his own movie and he didn't even get to do it!
Really? You have evidence of this? Either option is equally likely, given the available evidence.
Affleck certainly sounds like he was sold on the particular version of Batman he would get to play.
He didn’t get to do it because he dropped out, though. Though I accept that he had a lot of personal stuff going on at that time.
When it comes to the DCEU and Synder, this group are suddenly walking crystal balls filled with the dust of ground-up Ouija boards. Amazing for some who claim to hate and/or refuse to follow the franchise.
...but your common sense gets in the way of the typically infantile anti-Snyder ranting going on in a couple of threads. This crystal ball gang hate Snyder and his vision (to disturbing, extreme degrees considering the number of pages their posts have generated), but conveniently forget that for all of the actors (behind the biggest of DC's characters) who signed on, it seems plausible that they knew the planned DCEU was Snyder's vision, not WB's or anyone else's. WB certainly promoted the DCEU as being Snyder's ship to captain, so if that was the case, one cannot attempt (and fail) to separate all actor interest from Snyder, since he was the one guiding the course of several DC movies.
But you're dealing with bitter people who want to claim the DCEU as it was launched and guided was all Snyder's, yet somehow, all main DCEU actors had convenient reasons not tied to an interest in the man for taking on the roles. They cannot have it both ways, but then again, this kind of self-defeating, contradictory behavior is nothing new from the usual suspects in any Snyder-related thread.
It was a while back and I didn't save the site. I think it was over in the thread for the Snyder cut of Justice League, so if you go back through the last few pages you should be able to find it. One incident I do remember the article mentioning was that at one point Whedon wanted to kill off Spike, and at one actually cornered James Marsters and kept telling him he was a dead man. They laughed it off as a joke at the time, but it was still a bit odd.
No links as such but there are lots of rumours on twitter that JJ Abrams is working on a Superman movie
Again? Wonder if he’ll crib anything from his first attempt. (Don’t care either way but the Internet angst would be...glorious
).
Last edited:
*Googles*
Underlying source appears to be We Got This Covered, so should be treated as 100 percent fictional.
I can think of worse people to direct a Superman movie (one immediately springs to mind), but as Ovation gleefully alludes to, Abrams's previous "Flyby" concept was indeed a thing of heinousness and hideosity. Were he ever actually to pick up the Superman development baton again, he would be well advised to start over from scratch, from a much more traditional place.
I adore Star Trek into Darkness, a film that successfully updates its beloved characters without violating their essences, or rendering them unrecognizable. It's a marvel. If Abrams could do that for Superman, it would definitely work for me. (And he could cast Saldana as Lois.)
Wasn't she in the running for Lois? It was her, Rosamund Pike and Amy Adams. Pike was the first choice but she turned it down, IIRC.
Zack Snyder said in an interview a while back that Saldana was his first runner-up to Adams. (Not sure if he actually auditioned her or anything, or if this was just his head-casting.)
A little Googling reveals that, weirdly, Pike was rumored at one point for Man of Steel as the film's female lead, who was NOT Lois Lane. Alice Eve and Diane Kruger were also supposed to be in the running for this mystery role. I question if it was ever anything more than rumor (and replacing Lois with some other character can kiss my ass in any case).
A little Googling reveals that, weirdly, Pike was rumored at one point for Man of Steel as the film's female lead, who was NOT Lois Lane. Alice Eve and Diane Kruger were also supposed to be in the running for this mystery role. I question if it was ever anything more than rumor (and replacing Lois with some other character can kiss my ass in any case).
True. (See? We can agree on something.
)Though, of course, not always. I am not especially excited by a revival of his original idea (I'd be willing to see it, of course--I only make a final judgment after I've seen something) but it would be fun to watch the meltdown. My preference would be to continue with Cavill and do a proper sequel to Man of Steel. But even a more traditional approach is fine (as long as that's what Abrams wants to do, and not because he must conform to the dictates of the Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be (patent pending) instead). As ever, I would watch first, then judge.
Wow. Another thing in agreement. Must be the Christmas spirit.
(Into Darkness is my favourite Trek film of all, by a considerable margin over the rest, with only '09 within striking distance.)Perhaps it would have been Lana Lang--or maybe Lori Lemaris. Not "instead of Lois" but rather, "before Lois". Lois would have been in the second movie for sure (I can confirm it--I've just returned from Earth-247 where this alternate movie was made. Or maybe I've been marking too many bad essays--who knows?)