You want him to prove to you that Cavill once had the job?
In at least one of those cases the expectations were ridiculous. ( And as a technicality, the character also appeared in Suicide Squad. )The Realist said:
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Where would you place Brandon Routh?
I'm not 100% because I don't really follow them, but I believe both of those series have been rebooted at least once.
I gather there were attempts at reboots that were then followed by returns to the original continuity. I think Halloween has multiple contradictory continuities that all share the original film in common, much like Godzilla. Then there's something like Terminator, where the time-travel conceit allows all the continuity rewrites to be part of a single metacontinuity.
I think Routh did a fine job under less than optimal circumstances. Overall performance wise, I would probably rank him next following the three frontrunners I named.
He was also very good in Crisis on Infinite Earths as an older Superman
When I saw Superman Returns, I thought Routh was miscast as Superman, but when I saw him as Ray Palmer in the Arrowverse, I realized he could've made a great Superman but just wasn't given the right material or direction. And his appearance as Superman in Crisis confirmed it for me.
Brandon Routh was too busy apeing Reeve, and yes, that was his job, but copying another's not exactly top-shelf performance did not make a great Superman (the same with the disgusting Spacey copying Hackman).
IIRC the films were not making enough money for the studio. Everything after Wonder Woman or Shazam was considered by the studio to be a financial failure.
As I understand it Halloween has at least 5 different universes.
1. The timeline of Halloweens 1,2,4,5,6
2. Halloween 3 universe ( in which Halloween 1 is a movie advertised on TV )
3. The timeline of Halloween 1, Halloween 2, H20, Resurrection
4. The Zombie films
5. The timeline of Halloween 1, Halloween 2018, Kills, Ends
As I said, plenty of film series have come back from repeated failures without rebooting. And the later DCEU films barely qualified as a series anyway, which is my point. They were multiple wildly different standalone films that just happened to be set in the same universe. They were sufficiently independent from one other that it made little sense to treat them as a collective success or failure rather than letting each one stand or fall on its own merits. The continuity was so loose and tenuous already, such a minor factor to the films overall, that it seems ridiculous to blame the continuity for the films' performance or to think that replacing it would make any meaningful difference at the box office.
And there's no guarantee that a reboot will do any better than what it replaces. Heck, we already have an example of that in DC movies -- the "Tomorrowverse" continuity in the animated direct-to-video movies, which was much more uneven and generally poorer in quality than the continuity it replaced, and was scuttled after only 4 years and 7 distinct stories (over 10 movies).
Also, the thing that feature film studios these days don't seem to understand is that they wouldn't have so many financial failures if they'd just stop making such ridiculously overexpensive movies in the first place. A lot of these films would've been profitable if they'd been made with more economy so that it was easier to recoup the expense.
Routh was great in Legends and as villain in Chuck. And if "Superman Returns" wouldn't have been such a borefest of a movie (completely with same-old-same-old-Lex-wants-to-own-Land plot), I'd say, that this would've been his chance to be Supes. Fortunately enough, he did so in the Crisis-Crossover.
Concerning Justice League, I'm the odd one, since I liked the Whedon-Cut more, than the Snyder-Cut. Oh, that cut was okay, don't get me wrong, but I liked the shorter, more light-hearted version better.
Bottom line, what's done is done. The DCEU is in the rearview. Personally, I'll miss a few things about it, most not so much. But even the things I'll miss will hopefully be replaced with something equally good or better. None of which is to say that people aren't entitled to continue the post mortem if they want, or to lament the loss of their faves, but I'm more interested in looking forward at this point than back.
From my perspective, Corenswet will almost inevitably represent an improvement over his cinematic predecessor. Adams is a damned tough act to follow, but if anybody not named Bitsie Tulloch can do it, it's probably Rachel Brosnahan. I thought Sasha Calle showed a lot of promise as Kara, and I regret that we won't see more of her in the role, but I'm also eager to see what Milly Alcock brings to the table.
The next couple of years at the movies are going to be very exciting (and hopefully very satisfying) for this Super-fan.
From my perspective, Corenswet will almost inevitably represent an improvement over his cinematic predecessor. Adams is a damned tough act to follow, but if anybody not named Bitsie Tulloch can do it, it's probably Rachel Brosnahan. I thought Sasha Calle showed a lot of promise as Kara, and I regret that we won't see more of her in the role, but I'm also eager to see what Milly Alcock brings to the table.
The next couple of years at the movies are going to be very exciting (and hopefully very satisfying) for this Super-fan.
Both have their merits and flaws, but overall I think Whedon's is better. Snyder's did much better work with Cyborg and Flash, but it was 2 hours of fairly good movie sandwiched within 2 hours of needless, tiresome self-indulgence. I'd like to see an amalgam cut of the best parts of both, if that were feasible continuity-wise.
As much as I'm not really a Snyder fan, I do think his version of JL is overall superior to the theatrical one, which was an unsuccessful attempt to slice-'n'-dice what Snyder had done into something it was never designed to be. The theatrical cut frequently comes off as slapdash and half-baked, somehow managing to make even Adams's Lois seem uninspired (Whedon, despite being a very fine writer and director back in his TV heyday, seems to have no idea how to write or direct the role). Plus, most of the attempts at humor fall flat (again, Whedon's dialogue used to be whip-smart and almost unfailingly clever).
And Whedon's creative fumbles aside, you just can't reshape a lumbering portentous Zack Snyder cinematic endurance test into a breezy colorful lightweight amusement without the mismatched parts and crude Frankenstein stitching being all too obvious.
And Whedon's creative fumbles aside, you just can't reshape a lumbering portentous Zack Snyder cinematic endurance test into a breezy colorful lightweight amusement without the mismatched parts and crude Frankenstein stitching being all too obvious.
Oh, absolutely, the seams in the theatrical JL are blatant, but I can't blame Whedon for that given what he had to work with. If he'd been able to make a JL movie from scratch, I'm sure it would've been better. He is the guy who made The Avengers, after all. But there's a lot about it that I think is worthwhile, and it was the first DCEU movie besides Wonder Woman that I actually found enjoyable to watch, warts and all. And though it lacks the strongest parts of the Snyder Cut, it lacks the weakest parts of it too.
That's really the fundamental issue. If you're going to give Snyder the gig, then let him make his movie, for better or worse. If you want somebody else's movie, then hire them to begin with. But attempting a creative 180 on the fly was never likely to go well.
Yeah, of the three options, giving Snyder time to grieve his daughter and then let him finish the movie, let Joss Whedon start over from scratch, or have Whedon finish what Snyder started, the WB suit definitely picked the worst option.
That's almost as confusing as the Terminator franchise.
