• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

JD said:
If they're going more fantastical, I'm thinking they'll probably go more futuristic than past era, for the feel of Metropolis. At least that seems to be how it's usually portryed.
Click to expand...

They have options at any rate (and who knows, they may just plunk for the modern world as we know it without fantastical style places).

But if you go fantastical you don't actually have to choose between futuristic and 'period piece feel'. For instance, they go easily go retro-futuristic, ie, the feel of what people in the 50s and 60s thought the future would be like. Something that is both in the future and reasonably advanced yet also feels familiar from the past.
 
TerryTrek said:
This is potentially the first time since Reeve 78, that Superman may actually have a personality.

These two are well-cast. They'll be quite funny and entertaining, with Gunn's writing. They both have the right kind of goofiness and charm to make these roles work.
Click to expand...
I didn't even realize until this morning that Corenswet was the guy who played a cop in HBO's "We Own this City" because he was so different from the actor I'd seen in "Hollywood." That's definitely a good sign.

Though, to be fair, I think Cavill could have portrayed a Superman with a personality if Snyder had let him.
 
Thestral said:
Absolutely. Cavill was never the problem.
Click to expand...

Y'all probably guess that I am a critic of the DCFU (even though i truly wanted to have them do some good films), but add me to the list who also thought that Cavill was not the problem. In fact, are there any serious critics (other than David Zaslav) who didn't like Cavill???
 
I don't know how you define serious critic, but I've seen dozens of people who swear up and down he's a terrible actor in general.

Personally, I think he's a decent actor but not amazing. MoS is probably his best work overall, though, imo, and I think his Superman could've been much better with better writing and direction.
 
I'm more positive about Cavill as Clark than I used to be, but I still don't see anything to write home about acting-wise. To me, he is probably the weakest link among Snyder's generally excellent casting choices. I think a lot of people perceive him as being physically perfect for the part, and transfer that to a greater benefit of the doubt than he actually earned in terms of his performance (or potential).

Of course, others are genuinely over-the-moon about how amazing he was, which is not an opinion I can embrace, but one to which they are certainly entitled.
 
Thestral said:
Absolutely. Cavill was never the problem.
Click to expand...

Having a mobile block of wood as Superman isn't a problem?

I don't even really understand how Cavill has a career. Is it just because he a pretty boy, because I can't think of any amazing performances of his.
 
Do we have a thread for this show yet? I couldn't find one
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Rich Watson said:
Having a mobile block of wood as Superman isn't a problem?

I don't even really understand how Cavill has a career. Is it just because he a pretty boy, because I can't think of any amazing performances of his.
Click to expand...
Cavil is an excellent actor.
 
The Realist said:
I'm more positive about Cavill as Clark than I used to be, but I still don't see anything to write home about acting-wise. To me, he is probably the weakest link among Snyder's generally excellent casting choices. I think a lot of people perceive him as being physically perfect for the part, and transfer that to a greater benefit of the doubt than he actually earned in terms of his performance (or potential).

Of course, others are genuinely over-the-moon about how amazing he was, which is not an opinion I can embrace, but one to which they are certainly entitled.
Click to expand...

I've always found that Cavill is very effective at adapting himself to a role. He's got leading-man looks but character-actor instincts, changing his personality to fit a character. His Superman, his Napoleon Solo, his Geraint, and his bad-guy character from Mission: Impossible: Fallout are all very different and would never be mistaken for each other. And I've enjoyed all his performances I've seen except Geraint, though I lost interest in The Witcher halfway through episode 2 so I don't have a large sample.
 
Cavill is a wooden actor. He only seems to be well-accepted in roles where he plays cynical, jaded characters with limited dialogue and limited range required (Witcher, MI6, Enola).

He's well-cast for the Warhammer TV series (playing a similar character again) and works fine as a TV actor. He just didn't work as a leading man, and was miscast as Superman. Mainstream audiences didn't connect with the performance.

Corenswet, however, has potential. He has a lot of energy and personality onscreen, ideal for all the comedic beats this film will inevitably have. I suspect Brosnahan will be throwing out snarky quips like RDJ on and offscreen, so he will have a lot to play off of.
 
the G-man said:
I didn't even realize until this morning that Corenswet was the guy who played a cop in HBO's "We Own this City" because he was so different from the actor I'd seen in "Hollywood." That's definitely a good sign.

Though, to be fair, I think Cavill could have portrayed a Superman with a personality if Snyder had let him.
Click to expand...

Cavill's Superman did have a personality. That's why I found him so relatable. I'm sorry if his personality wasn't the one that you wanted.
 
TerryTrek said:
Cavill is a wooden actor. He only seems to be well-accepted in roles where he plays cynical, jaded characters with limited dialogue and limited range required (Witcher, MI6, Enola).
Click to expand...

I can only assume you haven't seen Guy Ritchie's terrific The Man from U.N.C.L.E. remake, where Cavill gives a lively, playful performance homaging Robert Vaughn's Napoleon Solo, but reminding me very much of Matt Bomer's Neal Caffrey from White Collar.

He just didn't work as a leading man, and was miscast as Superman. Mainstream audiences didn't connect with the performance.
Click to expand...

I connected fine with his performance in Man of Steel. It was the story that was the problem; his performance was one of the best parts. I felt he was an excellent Superman despite all the movie's attempts to prevent him from being Superman.
 
Christopher said:
I can only assume you haven't seen Guy Ritchie's terrific The Man from U.N.C.L.E. remake, where Cavill gives a lively, playful performance homaging Robert Vaughn's Napoleon Solo, but reminding me very much of Matt Bomer's Neal Caffrey from White Collar.

I connected fine with his performance in Man of Steel. It was the story that was the problem; his performance was one of the best parts. I felt he was an excellent Superman despite all the movie's attempts to prevent him from being Superman.
Click to expand...

Man from Uncle flopped. Mainstream audiences weren't charmed by his performance and it didn't connect, so my original comment stands.

Man of Steel was also an underperformer for WB. 11% Return on Investment theatrically. That's really why they didn't trust Cavill to headline another solo Superman flick again. Too much negativity on his Superman take for it to fly with mainstream audiences.

Sadly, this reboot was unavoidable.
 
TerryTrek said:
Man from Uncle flopped.
Click to expand...

Many movies that are now considered great were box-office failures -- Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Carpenter's The Thing, The Iron Giant, Big Trouble in Little China, etc. It is profoundly disingenuous to mistake box-office success for quality.


Mainstream audiences weren't charmed by his performance and it didn't connect, so my original comment stands.
Click to expand...

I was responding to "Cavill is a wooden actor." I think his performance as Solo refutes that blanket assumption, and that doesn't require the movie to have succeeded, because that's a completely different question. You are equating its failure with his performance because that formulation supports your premise. That does not make it objectively valid to assume such a causal connection. There are many factors that can contribute to a film's success or failure, so it is not rational to presume a single actor's performance must be the crucial factor.

And I stand by what I said -- while his other characters may be similarly understated, they are nonetheless quite distinct in character. I'm impressed by Cavill's ability to alter the nuances of his performance to adapt to the different roles he plays. The fact that he does it subtly just makes it more impressive.


Man of Steel was also an underperformer for WB. 11% Return on Investment theatrically. That's really why they didn't trust Cavill to headline another solo Superman flick again. Too much negativity on his Superman take for it to fly with mainstream audiences.
Click to expand...

If they blamed the failure of his Superman on Cavill rather than on Snyder's poor handling of Superman as a character, or on the editors and executives who left most of Cavill's best moments in BvS on the cutting-room floor, then they're just making him a scapegoat. Cavill was a great Superman sabotaged by the flaws in his films.
 
Christopher said:
Many movies that are now considered great were box-office failures -- Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Carpenter's The Thing, The Iron Giant, Big Trouble in Little China, etc. It is profoundly disingenuous to mistake box-office success for quality.
Click to expand...

Is Man from Uncle a cult classic like some of those? Nope. Hasn't landed in the pop cultural landscape as a classic. Mediocre reviews, flopped at the box office, weak WOM, no favorable metrics.

I'm showing you the metrics for why Cavill's wooden performance didn't track with audiences and he didn't work as a leading man.
Christopher said:
I was responding to "Cavill is a wooden actor." I think his performance as Solo refutes that blanket assumption, and that doesn't require the movie to have succeeded, because that's a completely different question. You are equating its failure with his performance because that formulation supports your premise. That does not make it objectively valid to assume such a causal connection. There are many factors that can contribute to a film's success or failure, so it is not rational to presume a single actor's performance must be the crucial factor.

And I stand by what I said -- while his other characters may be similarly understated, they are nonetheless quite distinct in character. I'm impressed by Cavill's ability to alter the nuances of his performance to adapt to the different roles he plays. The fact that he does it subtly just makes it more impressive.
Click to expand...

You're taking about your own individual opinion, that's the problem. I'm referring to actual numbers, box office, WOM, etc. The later is what studios actually care about when it comes to these extremely expensive tentpole projects.

Cavill's wooden performance didn't charm the mainstream movie goers. WB noticed. He was the lead, and it didn't work. He didn't get to headline a MOS 2, and now we're in reboot-land. From a business standpoint, this was the only option.
 
TerryTrek said:
Is Man from Uncle a cult classic like some of those? Nope.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It's just invalid to say box office equals quality. You obviously have a beef with Cavill and are cherrypicking evidence and arguments that support your preconceived notion, and in my mind that makes your arguments unworthy of listening to. I like Cavill, and none of your logical fallacies will alter that fact.
 
Christopher said:
Doesn't matter. It's just invalid to say box office equals quality. You obviously have a beef with Cavill and are cherrypicking evidence and arguments that support your preconceived notion, and in my mind that makes your arguments unworthy of listening to. I like Cavill, and none of your logical fallacies will alter that fact.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm going by metrics that show that mainstream audiences didn't respond to him as a lead, and his wooden performances didn't resonate.

You're basically just covering your ears and believing that your own opinion of him is somehow more valid here, that's what the hardcore DCEU fans have been doing for years in their small circles... so that's not surprising.

Ultimately, in the end, he didn't work for what WB wanted with the character and now they are rebooting. They didn't want to give him a new expensive contract, given how his Superman was received. They tested the waters with Black Adam and general audiences just had apathy for him. So now we're getting a clean slate.
 
Christopher, you were commenting just the other day on the interesting way tastes and perceptions differ, and this is certainly a prime example of it. Here you are singing the praises of Henry Cavill as this talented, versatile, nuanced actor, while you're admittedly indifferent to Amy Adams, who IMO is about ten times the actor Cavill is. From where I sit, her incredibly smart and soulful performance as Lois absolutely runs rings around Cavill's Clark. So yeah, opinions, amirite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top