Brandon Routh leaving Superman?
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Yeah, but that whole Millar story was a fabrication anyway. They're reviewing proposals all right, but I doubt Millar is anyone they'd get involved with - for one thing, he writes comics exclusively for DC's competition, and to have him involved in a movie version of DC's most iconic property would be a little weird (at least to those in charge, if no one else).
And as for the origin recap, Grant Morrison captured it perfectly in only five panels in All-Star Superman, so there's no reason it couldn't be done during a credits sequence at least.
I was suspicious about Millar's claims, too, given his history of being a bullshitter of note. But it sounds like he was at least tangentially involved in a pitch. It seems that Warners invited a number of directors to pitch what they would do if given the chance to reboot Superman, and one of those directors was Matthew Vaughn, who asked Millar to help him work up a pitch (Vaughn knows Millar as he's directing Kick-Ass, an adaptation of one of Millar's comic book series).
The loss of Brandon Routh is not great loss at all. He was utterly incapable of portraying two distinct personalities for Supes and Clark Kent. A clean break is the best way to go.
I don't think so. It's true that there wasn't a huge difference in personality between Clark and Superman, but I would blame the screenwriters and director. I don't think it's really Routh's failure.
I thought they came across as two fairly distinct people. Although to be honest, we didn't see much of the nerdy Metropolis Clark in the movie to begin with-- just the Smallville Clark who was meant to be Superman without the costume anyway.
*shrugs*
If you want to believe Routh would have been fine if not for Singer, you're definitely entitled to the opinion. Routh didn't do himself any favors, though. He was thoroughly uncharismatic as either Supes or Kent. And I can't imagine Singer's direction would have been anything like, "Hey Brandon, great performance, but could you dial back the quality of it a bit? I'm going for cardboard here."
But however you want to classify it or lame blame, the end result was the same: The personas of Clark Kent and Supes from Routh were so similar that it was ludicrous that no one even pondered the connection (further reinforcing the idiocy of the film's central premise). And who cares whether or not they were portraying a "nerdy Metropolis" or "Smallville" Clark in the film? Either way, it's a huge detriment to the performance for Supes and Kent to have almost no distinguishable difference in posture, inflection, feelings, conversations, emotions.
I wish Routh all the best, I really do, but the Superman franchise needs a truly iconic performance from its main character. Not a paint-by-numbers sleepwalk. Thus, Routh needs to be gone from the franchise and someone new needs to step into the cape.
If you want to believe Routh would have been fine if not for Singer, you're definitely entitled to the opinion. Routh didn't do himself any favors, though. He was thoroughly uncharismatic as either Supes or Kent. And I can't imagine Singer's direction would have been anything like, "Hey Brandon, great performance, but could you dial back the quality of it a bit? I'm going for cardboard here."
But however you want to classify it or lame blame, the end result was the same: The personas of Clark Kent and Supes from Routh were so similar that it was ludicrous that no one even pondered the connection (further reinforcing the idiocy of the film's central premise). And who cares whether or not they were portraying a "nerdy Metropolis" or "Smallville" Clark in the film? Either way, it's a huge detriment to the performance for Supes and Kent to have almost no distinguishable difference in posture, inflection, feelings, conversations, emotions.
I wish Routh all the best, I really do, but the Superman franchise needs a truly iconic performance from its main character. Not a paint-by-numbers sleepwalk. Thus, Routh needs to be gone from the franchise and someone new needs to step into the cape.
Well that comes from the Donner'Verse interpratation of Clark Kent being the disguise and Superman/Kal-El being the dominant persona in that universe. Lois doesn't have a chance to fall for Clark but falls for Superman even after he reveals that he was Clark in Superman II.
Once again, though, it doesn't matter which "verse" the movie is utilizing, so long as it makes sense for the story. A big part of Superman Returns was keeping the identity of Superman a secret. If that's the angle the story is going to go, portraying Kent and Supes the same way is a fundamental mistake. Supes returns from an extended unannounced absence. Kent returns at the same time under the same circumstances. They both look and act the same. Both pine over Lois Lane. Their identities are supposed to be kept secret and no one figures it out? That's just bad movie-making. Cast blame on anyone you want but, as an actor, Routh does bear some of it and is, as a result, tainted from any reprise of the role.
No, that's just something fundamentally wrong with the franchise itself. Lois can't figure out, after all that time, that the guy with the same build, facial structure, height (yes I know he slouches, but come on) just so happens to disappear on her every single time Superman comes to save the day? Someone, after all those years, couldn't imagine that reporter at the Daily Bugle without glasses and go, "Holy shit cakes, it's Superman!"
It's suspension of disbelief. The filmmakers were just taking the same old way out they use in the comic.
I would have liked it better had Clark allowed Lois to keep her memories of their time in the Fortress and learning his secret. He says that he trusts her after she says she won't tell anyone but then takes away her memories with a lame kiss that is obviously there for romantic and mystical purposes. I don't like that scene in the movie.
So Vaughn was the heretofore "unnamed" director Millar was yapping about? Interesting. Vaughn seems to be attached to a lot of comic-book properties lately, the aforementioned Kick-Ass, at one point X-Men 3 back in 2005 and then Thor for a while. And now Superman. Vaughn is a good director. I loved his Layer Cake. I wouldn't mind him directing a Superman film.
Vaughn directing Superman would be interesting, even from a Mark Millar script. I know that I'm in the minority concerning liking his work.
Superman works at the Daily Bugle? Damn, Final Crisis really did reshape the DC Universe!
It actually happened in Superman and Spider-Man (1981):
Superman works at the Daily Bugle? Damn, Final Crisis really did reshape the DC Universe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_and_Spider-Man
In the book, Clark Kent works at the Daily Bugle for a short time. You would not believe all the admiration and respect that Clark gets from J. Jonah Jameson.
Superman works at the Daily Bugle? Damn, Final Crisis really did reshape the DC Universe!
Oops.
Got Marvel on the brain apparently!
This was a big problem. No one noticing Kent is Superman is one thing; we know it is ridiculous, but it's just the way it is so you live with it. And its amusing when the characters consider the possibility, then dismiss it. But the simultaneous extended absences and simultaneous returns not noticed by the "sharp" reporting minds who know both the Superman/Kent the best, thrust that issue right into the forefront where it can't stand up to that kind of examination. It would have been better if the film navigated around it so the viewer doesn't think about it too much; its too delicate a conceit to do otherwise.
Whose work, Vaughn's or Millar's? If the former, I'm totally with you - I thought he did a fantastic job on Stardust, and I could see him directing Superman. I'd want Millar to be kept far, far away from it, though.