It's not. I don't like the decision but it's not a dick-headed move. It's simply business and looking down the road for someone who can play the part for a decade+.
If Gunn used the "reasoning" that getting rid of Cavill was about wanting someone younger who could portray the character a decade down the line, then this assumes that one, the films were never going to have characters gradually age. Two, Gunn must have been unaware that film series had actors stay for long periods of time (Moore as Bond, Downey jr as Iron Man, et al.), and in either theory, it renders his "reasoning" as an ultimately dick-headed move. There was no logical excuse for cutting Cavill, other than his need to create a Gunn universe, and he could not do that with actors who defined their roles / films.
I think the actor is charismatic and it would be nice to see him get a chance to properly play Superman.....not a flying Wolverine.
No one knows what "flying Wolverine" means in relation to Cavill's Superman.
Agreed.
I will admit that there is a definite continuity between the two flms in this aspect. And yeah, I actually liked Batfleck. And Snyder's Luthor feels so much more relevent, post T@rump presidency. However, i think Eisenbergmight been one of the veryfew miscasting done in the films.
Considering we are still in the general era of arrogant, soulless tech CEOs--many having a cultural association with
very late Generation X-forward, Luthor--also an arrogant, soulless tech CEO, needed to be cast in that mold, not as some older, near-retirement age (and completely non-threatening) blowhard as seen in other Superman adaptations. Eisenberg zeroed in on what this century's type of Luthor should be, and succeeded in the role.
Gunn has to do his job under certain parameters, set by Zaslav. It's far more specific than just using DC characters, of even Superman. It's a younger Superman. And for the next 10 years. Gunn might have just slightly more power than Geoff Johns. Zaslav is more like Rick Berman, but i think Gunn is more talented than Brannon Braga, and will do a better job with what he has been dealt with.
Remember, Cavill returning was already in the works
before Gunn was inked in for his new job--it was going on for quite some time, since there's interview evidence from Johnson and his agents hinting at the Cavill matter, and even at that point, the meetings with Cavill were already in progress, therefore, if Zaslav was against Cavill's reprising the role, it is highly doubtful Cavill would have appeared in
Black Adam at all, let alone follow that with official announcements of his return.
It is Gunn (and his partner who desired a universe of their own, which led to the Cavill meetings and his dismissal from the role of Superman, so, as much as others suffer from "Zaslav Derangement Syndrome", where he's the cause of everything from the Hindenburg's destruction, global warming and Cavill being booted from the Superman role, this all falls on Gunn.
Irrelevent?? Uh, no. They can de-aging for one or two flashback scenes. Maybe. If relevent (like the upcoming Indiana Jones film). But ain't no way penny pinching will spend money on a whole movie with de-aging.
I'm pointing out that de-aging is an option, but as mentioned earlier in this post, this assumes Gunn did not want films where characters gradually age, like--you know--real life.
Regarding Superman as Wolverine --- what bothered somepoeple about Man of Steel was all the destruction going on in the fighting...where Superman is fighting like WOlverine, who only focuses on the fight , and doesn't care about the destruction and collateral damage invovled.
As noted time after time, he was fighting a warrior with greater experience with his power than Superman had at that point. This warrior was set to destroy the population of earth, so Superman had to do whatever he could to stop a being who was never going to stand down and surrender. Some must have been in the lobby buying candy in order to have missed the situation as presented. He was doing his job, not acting as camp counselor.
