Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by dahj, Aug 5, 2018.
And I bet at least a few would say "Michael Keaton" or "Tom Holland."
And four others would say "Christopher Reeves".
Sad but so, so fucking true.
No idea where I first read it, but always loved "The 's' is on the chest" when correcting that.
As noted yesterday, the media coverage about all things Cavill in relation to returning to the Superman role centered on Cavill--the story did not mention him as an afterthought (e.g., as if it was a role being recast), because he is the face of the character in this era, or as his friend Johnson stated, Cavill is (paraphrasing) "the Superman of this generation".
Zaslav has some good instincts (the obvious one being a focus on DC's Big Three--at least at the time he assumed his current position), but the idea that Superman had to be a billion-dollar earner assumes a flagship character must earn that much, or its a "failure", when the widespread support / audience interest in the DCEU Superman was undeniable from the start (and it played a part in the previous WB leadership greenlighting the ZSJL, due to fans and critics thinking Superman had been mishandled / treated poorly in the theatrical version) which he was aware of, and continued to be into this era, as Johnson teased fans & the media about Cavill's return to the role.
One has to wonder what will be the WB/D narrative if Gunn's Superman fails to be the desired billion-dollar film: "Superman past his shelf-life of relevancy for today's audience?" (to be honest, internally at DC the publisher, that has been an off and on discussion for more than two decades). "All anyone cares about is Batman?" , or "The superhero film has worn out its welcome, so few movies won't have the chance to go big." It should be interesting for no other reason than to hear the excuses that will fly out of WB.
I can hear the outcries from different camps now:
"They did not use Supergirl, but brought Routh--who portrayed a Superman who is not a part of the DCEU! What does that say?!?"
"You cut the scenes with Cavill's Superman--but drag Routh into the film? WTF?"
No-win situations. As it stands, some Supergirl scenes have been cut from The Flash to remove all once-intended lead-ins to her own, now cancelled solo film, so Supergirl fans are sort of screwed either way.
While it's not the Calle version, we are still getting Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, so Supergirl fans aren't totally screwed.
It's possible it could still be Calle. Gunn has said no decision has been made on that front, noting the film is still several years off. It would seem reasonable that audience reception of The Flash, and of Supergirl in it, may affect that decision.
OK yeah that's true, if The Flash is what sets up the new DCU then I guess it's possible that characters from it could carry over.
Current WB/DC vs. Dwayne Johnson...
Warner Bros Blame The Rock For The DCEU's Box Office BOMBS | DCU
Some points from the video:
"..it also means that Warner Brothers are trying to claim that the reason Shazam: Fury of the Gods failed was
because of Shazam and Black Adam not having any connectivity instead of looking at the way they promoted
the movie, the way their universe is set up, and the fact that the new head of DC announced a reboot at the end of
last year, which destroyed a lot of hype for this movie. Only one of those factors is something the new regime
couldn't help; the way the DCEU is, isn't their fault--its the fault of the old regime. Which is why if they were going to
play the blame game, why not blame the old regime?"
"Shazam 2 was produced under their watch, and the entire DCEU was struggling because of them. They were the easy targets to blame, and there is a lot of evidence to back up that reason. So why blame The Rock with a really
poor excuse? Now, I have a little theory as to why Warner Brothers did this: I think it may be because al ot of the fans
were on board with The Rock after he brought back Henry Cavill as Superman. A lot of DC fans were happy because he managed to do what no one else was able to do: bring back Henry Cavill's Superman to the DCEU. And a lot of fans had faith that The Rock was pushing the DCEU in the right direction. Black Adam may not have been the best movie, but
it was produced under the old regime who didn't listen to the fans, and so when the new regime came in, he was able to
bring Cavill back because they were listening to the fans. And he promised that listening to the fans would be the top priority in the new era of the DCEU. And so when The Rock was kicked out--alongside Henry Cavill
by James Gunn and Peter Safran, a lot of fans--including myself--were really upset and angry with that decision."
"So I could very easily see this article coming out about The Rock as an attempt to make fans less upset about
The Rock's departure, and in turn, make them more open to the rebooted DCU. And I think that could have been a motivation from the start: wanting fans to turn on the DCEU, so that Gunn could have more of a chance with his rebooted DCU."
"Why on Earth would you announce at the beginning of the year that you're rebooting the DC universe? In what
world is that a smart business decision? The company is in debt, and they've just announced that the next four DC
movies are pretty much pointless to the future of the DCU. Also, blaming The Rock for Shazam 2's failure
also pushes the pressure away from Peter Safran, who produced Shazam 2, and is now the co-head of DC Studios
who is running the business side of DC."
"How bad does it look that the person now running the business side of DC Studios, just had his DC movie bomb at the box office? Blaming The Rock shifts that blame from him to someone who is no longer working at the company. I think there are some really dodgy things happening at DC Studios right now."
All parties at current WB/DC seem to believe their Dwayne Johnson-related public statements appeal only to those with no desire or ability to click "save" and have the memory capacity of dryer lint. Shazam: Fury of the Gods was Safran's film (as producer), and its a colossal failure having not a thing to do with the lack of crossover with Black Adam. If the first Shazam was the alleged "right" direction DCEU films should have been following, and the sequel was more of the same (with the same producer), surely Shazam 2 possessed all of the "right" ingredients necessary to be a hit whether Johnson participated in the film or not.
Johnson was correct about the approach to Black Adam, as far as the character not being connected to the silly Shazam was concerned. Obviously, he made the best decision associated with the DCEU (since ZSJL was greenlit) in getting Cavill back as Superman--which was one of the near-universally praised decisions in recent DCEU history. Ahh, but nevermind all of the positive directions taken--nope, its all Johnson's fault Safran's baby fell apart because its success all hinged on Black Adam appearing, or Shazam showing up in his film.
Oh well. The trail of responsibility is there for all to see, cannot be hand-waived away, and rings a sour note about one half of the leadership of the forthcoming DCU, a half unwilling to look in the mirror for the central reason Shazam 2 is a failure.
Given that one of the plot points of the story is Kara turning 21 she's already too old for the part now, let alone in three years time.
Eh, actors play younger all the time, and to me she does look younger than her current age (27). If Woman of Tomorrow were going into production today, I think she'd be fine. Still, you might be right that 30 would be pushing it for a just-turning-21 character (assuming they retain that element of the graphic novel).
Of course, what really matters is what Gunn and his creative partners think, so we shall see what we shall see.
Off the top of my head, Winona Ryder* played an 18-year old in "Girl, Interrupted" when she was actually 28. Ant let's not even start with the "teenagers" on shows like Beverly Hills 90210 or (more to the topic at hand) Smallville.
*Of course, she's the first example coming to my mind.
Gabrielle Carteris is always the first person I cite whenever this discussion comes up. She was ten years older than she was suppose to be. Yes, the others were a bit older than they were suppose to be but none of them were as close as her.
The Smallville kids were supposed to be high school freshmen when the show started (hence about 14-going-on-15):
Kreuk, Mack, and Jones -- mmmaybe?
Welling? Not unless he's some kinda alien or something.
Kreuk and Mack were 18 at the start of the series, and Jones was 17.
Yet Tom Welling was the same age at the start of Smallville that Clark Kent was at the end of it nine and a half years later.
In the 1954 Adventures of Superman episode "The Boy Who Hated Superman," the titular teen-delinquent "boy" was played by a 28-year-old.
I remember Kryptonsite captioning this photo
In movie new. The Joker 2 sequel has revealed Lady Gaga in her Harley Quinn costume
The Joker movement is still going strong two years later with Harley being his biggest supporter. Harvey Dent is also in the movie
Characters, performers or why they're supported are not interchangeable. Once the casting and early production photos of Sasha Calle were released (along with rumors about her character's origins), she gained much support, but it goes nowhere with the end of the DCEU, so there will be quite a bit of disappointment, especially if whatever remains of her performance in The Flash is deemed a success.
‘Full Circle, Three-Day Celebration of the Zack Snyderverse Trilogy’ Will Benefit Suicide Prevention Foundation
Support for the cause:
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
Autumn Snyder Tribute Fund
Poster for the event:
I've honestly always preferred actors in their 20s to play teenagers. Partially because they're generally better actors then actual teenagers, and partially because real teenagers annoyed me even when I was a teenager. Its also possible that watching too much Power Rangers as a kid skewed my expectations for "teenage" characters
Those two actors on the left look way too old to be teenagers.
Separate names with a comma.