• 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!

Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

I never even considered Amy Adams, but hey works for me!

I don't think any of us did, did we? I mean, I'm not going back and reading 60 pages to check, but when I heard she'd been cast, I thought, "All that speculation and her name never came up! Weird!" But I think she's a great choice.

(And whatever they do to her hair -- I just hope it's better than what they did to Kate Bosworth's. Because...bleh. I don't think it helped sell her performance as Lois...)
 
^No need to read through all the pages, since there's a handy "Search This Thread" box at the top of the page. And you're right -- a search for the name "Adams" in this thread turns up zero results prior to today.
 
Wow interesting. Didn't see that choice coming.

Of course I've never seen Cavil or Amy Adams in anything. I look forward to looking at the various photoshops people on SHH are no doubt cranking up as we speak.
 
Most of this cast would be considered thinking outside the box in my opinion. There has literally been no one that I've been disappointed about yet.
 
Knowing her performance in Night at the Museum 2 as Amelia Earhart, I think she has all the right spunk to play Lois.
 
I forgot seeing her in that. Yeah, definitely reminiscent of the Lois in the old Fleischer cartoons.
 
I never even considered Amy Adams, but hey works for me!
I like Amy Adams too, but I wanted an actress who was closer in age to Henry Cavill. She's 9 years older than her costar, and will be at least 40 by the time she plays Lois Lane in her third Superman film (assuming she signs for three as actors often do in these franchise deals). BTW, Margot Kidder was only 4 years older than Christopher Reeve.
Lois, in the typical setup, is the Planet's star reporter when Clark is a noob, so her being older doesn't seem that unusual to me.

Between endless reboots and adaptations I've lost track. However, at one point, it seemed to me the idea was that, while Clark was the noob, he wasn't a kid fresh out of college either. The implication was usually that he'd spent a few years having adventures (varying depending on the version of the origin you were reading/watching) before he decided to adopt the reporter persona.
 
^True, but the point is that Lois has traditionally been portrayed as the established star reporter who was there before Clark, not a novice herself.
 
But if Clark spent several years as an adult someplace before coming to the Planet, time during which Lois had risen the ranks of said paper, there's nothing to say they couldn't be about the same age. The difference would be that Lois was established there and Clark was the new guy.
 
"Been around the block" Lois Lane is one way to rationalize the casting of an older actress. For a reboot, I prefer the notion of a young reporter, just out of college, who is beginning to impress her fellow journalists at the Daily Planet.

But that's not Lois's role you're describing -- it's Clark's role. He's the one who's just shown up as a bright new talent and begins to impress his colleagues. Lois is the seasoned veteran who's already a star. What would be the point in giving Lois a role that's a mirror image of Clark's?
I don't see a problem. Lois may be talented and ambitious, but she doesn't have to be a "star" reporter before she gets her first interview with Superman. What I'm suggesting would not be much of a change from comic-book tradition.
 
(And whatever they do to her hair -- I just hope it's better than what they did to Kate Bosworth's. Because...bleh. I don't think it helped sell her performance as Lois...)

I'm not convinced Amy Adams has the complexion to pull off being brunette. Besides which, she's an absolute bombshell in her natural color.

Redheaded Lois FTW!
 
^ Agreed. Amy Adams' natural hair color > canon and is well worth a violation :)

And it will be fun hearing people complain about it in any event. Not as much fun as hearing people complain about Zoe Saldana getting the part, but fun.
 
I don't see a problem. Lois may be talented and ambitious, but she doesn't have to be a "star" reporter before she gets her first interview with Superman. What I'm suggesting would not be much of a change from comic-book tradition.

But why are you suggesting it? The role's already been cast, and they're not going that way.
 
I doubt that casting Saldana in any movie at all would hurt its box office performance. Who do you think is really going to pass on buying a ticket to Superman because Lois Lane isn't a brunette of european background, other than the white racist yahoos who tried to organize that tiny little protest over "Heimdall" in Thor?
True fact: racist or not, a black actress in a movie headline with a white suprehero ain't gonna bring much money from overseas or in the good ol' USA. I also find it funny that a non-white literary character can be changed to white and the uproar can deafen you, but a black actress for a white literary character is absolutely fine. Strange, that!

Every fanboy who's so incredibly narrow and anal as to object to the casting on "continuity" rather than explicitly racist concerns would be offset by hundreds of folks who'd see the ads and go "oh, I know who she is and like her. Let's see that." This is, of course, the only reason that well-known actors command high salaries to begin with.

You do realize both of Zoe Saldana's movies after Avatar (Losers, Takers) were insta-flops, yes? And in Avatar she wasn't even in her true form? You can call Tom Cruise, Ben Stiller and Robert Di Niro as well-known actors. Zoe saldana ain't that.
 
I don't see a problem. Lois may be talented and ambitious, but she doesn't have to be a "star" reporter before she gets her first interview with Superman. What I'm suggesting would not be much of a change from comic-book tradition.

But why are you suggesting it? The role's already been cast, and they're not going that way.
I'm so glad I have you to help me get used to everything.
 
I also find it funny that a non-white literary character can be changed to white and the uproar can deafen you, but a black actress for a white literary character is absolutely fine. Strange, that!
Whites and non-whites in western fiction and society are in completely different positions. And as long as that's the case, it won't be the same.
 
True fact: racist or not, a black actress in a movie headline with a white suprehero ain't gonna bring much money from overseas or in the good ol' USA.

Tip for the day: Prefacing a statement with "true fact" is not enough to make it true. You support -- or refute -- a claim with actual evidence. Like this:

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php

Of the ten most successful feature film actors of all time, measured by total box-office grosses of the films they've appeared in, four are black -- with Samuel L. Jackson taking the number one spot. It seems quite counterfactual to assert that having a black performer in a leading role would make a film unprofitable.



I also find it funny that a non-white literary character can be changed to white and the uproar can deafen you, but a black actress for a white literary character is absolutely fine. Strange, that!

That's very disingenuous. For centuries, Western society has given special privileges to whites and denied other ethnic groups the right to compete fairly. Even today, despite the proven success of certain black or Asian actors, it's difficult for performers of color to get an equal chance to succeed. You yourself assert that racial prejudice is still prevalent, so to turn around and say this in the very next sentence is a gross contradiction.

Your mistake is in defining it in terms of the characters. The uproar isn't about the characters -- it's about the real live human beings seeking gainful employment as actors. It's about wanting fair opportunities for everyone. Minority roles are still outnumbered by white roles, so casting whites as characters who were originally minorities is denying scarce opportunities to actors of other ethnicities. It's a matter of job discrimination, and there's nothing funny about that.


You do realize both of Zoe Saldana's movies after Avatar (Losers, Takers) were insta-flops, yes? And in Avatar she wasn't even in her true form? You can call Tom Cruise, Ben Stiller and Robert Di Niro as well-known actors. Zoe saldana ain't that.

So? She was also in several successful movies before that, including Center Stage, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, and a little thing called Star Trek. No actor is successful in 100 percent of their films.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top