DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Kurt Russell on the rumors about him playing Superman’s father in SUPERMAN: LEGACY
https://twitter.com/DCU_Updates/status/1732893126082302065
I'm all in already even if he just does a voice over! It would still be epic hearing him utter lines like "My son etc etc".I also love that he knows so well that Marlon Brando had to have his lines feed to him or hidden around very carefully. He had a big laugh at trying to stand up to Marlon Brando.
My backup choice would be Dennis Quaid.
https://twitter.com/DCU_Updates/status/1732893126082302065
I'm all in already even if he just does a voice over! It would still be epic hearing him utter lines like "My son etc etc".I also love that he knows so well that Marlon Brando had to have his lines feed to him or hidden around very carefully. He had a big laugh at trying to stand up to Marlon Brando.
My backup choice would be Dennis Quaid.
Is it me, or did he just say Blunt instead of Gunn? Even if I didn't mishear, it might be a real mix-up - it's been six years since GotG 2 - or it might be a nickname.
Anyway, I'd be happy with this casting.
Anyway, I'd be happy with this casting.
Today, probably. In the '40s and '50s, Superman was a nationwide sensation, so you'd probably find more than a few people who knew who Jor-El was (or Jor-L, as he was originally). Particularly in the '40s, when Superman appeared in comic books, newspaper comic strips, a hit radio series, a prose novel (by the head writer of the radio series), a theatrical cartoon short series, and eventually live-action serials. He was probably as big then as the MCU is now. If not bigger, because the media landscape wasn't as fragmented as it is today and there wasn't as much competition for the audience's attention.
Sean Gunn as Maxwell Lord? https://deadline.com/2023/12/sean-gunn-dc-universe-maxwell-lord-james-gunn-1235659262/
I don't believe that. From everything I've head about the man I think he wants to be an old-fashioned studio mogul but his current responsibilities due to the debt make that impossible, so he has to be the bad guy. Of course, I don't know how much influence he has on the various profiles written about him...
I think that's just his excuse. That's how vulture capitalists work. They deliberately go into debt to buy a company and then make it back by tearing it down and selling off its parts.
Besides, if his goal is to make the company profitable again, he's really, really bad at it. His decisions, like cancelling shows in production and killing fully made movies as tax write-offs, have badly hurt WB's stock value and reputation and made creators less likely to want to work with WB for fear that their work will be buried. So either he's deliberately destroying the studio or he's incredibly incompetent at running it. Or both.
My only familiarity with the character is WW84, but I liked Gunn a lot as Kraglin in the GotG movies.
Maxwell Lord was a regular in season 1 of Supergirl, played by Peter Facinelli. He was sort of the Lex Luthor surrogate, though he redeemed himself at the end of the season, then disappeared without explanation when the show moved production to Vancouver in season 2. Other versions appeared in the Justice League Unlimited episode "Ultimatum" (voiced by Tim Matheson) and in two season 9 episodes of Smallville (played by Gil Bellows).
Too bad they couldn't get Sam Neil to play Maxwell Lord, as that who Giffen, DeMatteis and McGuire modeled him after.
Deadline's report suggests the character may not appear in Superman: Legacy. Good news if that's the case, IMO, since that film is threatening to become overstuffed with characters.
(Though what I should really say is "overstuffed with characters I don't care about," since there are rumors they're casting Supergirl for the film, and I'm all for that.
)
Also, in the late 70s many people knew the name Jor-El because Marlon Brando played the part.
But, he wasn't a "bad guy" until the much maligned Idenity Crisis in the mid-oughts. I didn't read a lot of the nineties comics, but my understanding is that prior to Identity Crisis he was the benefactor of the Justice League.
Deadline's report suggests the character may not appear in Superman: Legacy. Good news if that's the case, IMO, since that film is threatening to become overstuffed with characters.
(Though what I should really say is "overstuffed with characters I don't care about," since there are rumors they're casting Supergirl for the film, and I'm all for that.
What Gunn has said is that from the start, he is going to show that their is a cohesive world in which supers exist. WB wants a franchise, and Gunn's responsibilty is to create that world, so it doesn't mean that other heroes are going to take over the story, just that they will be appearing. Personally, I think that his approach has a lot of possibility and I'm being optimistic about it.
f
Well, yes and no; initially, he seemed like a benefactor, albeit IIRC a kind of manipulative con-artist type who was out for publicity and profit, but then it turned out he was being mind-controlled by an evil computer as part of a devious master plan of some sort. Once he was freed from that, he was still an amoral con artist out for himself but had a conscience and the capacity for redemption, like the Supergirl TV version and to an extent the WW84 version. Over the '90s, he gained telepathic powers and went through a lot of hellish stuff that made him hate metahumans, and in the '00s the Infinite Crisis storyline retconned him as having been a villain all along.
Believe me, I'm trying to be optimistic as well. I personally don't see the "possibility" in turning a Superman movie into a screen version of DC's Who's Who, but I've been wrong about artists' creative choices many times before, and always happily so. I'm delighted to eat my words when something I was skeptical about turns out great, and I'll be tying on a bib in anticipation come July 2025.
It could be that some of these characters will just appear in the background on TV news reports, say. Or there could be one brief scene where Superman helps a team of them out of a jam, before the story refocuses just on Superman and his immediate cast. Just enough to establish, as theenglish said, that this is a world where multiple heroes exist, without the story actually being about them.
Think about how the first Shazam! movie engaged with the wider DCEU. The other heroes were there, the characters were aware of and influenced by their existence, but they were incidental to the story being told. They were just part of the background texture of the world.
Or, heck, since it's a James Gunn movie, maybe the best analogy is how Gunn handled the cameos of several big-name stars as Reavers in Guardians 2. They were basically just there in one scene, IIRC, enough to establish them without taking up a significant piece of the story.
Similar threads
