Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by urbandefault, Jan 18, 2020.
I liked the '90s animated series voice cast (Daly, Delany, Clancy Brown and George Dzundra) a lot, their basic characterizations (Superman particularly ) and the relatively limited version of the powers, but I don't think the characters and relationships really developed much, enough, especially after the first 13 episodes, after that they felt pretty static. The villains Lex and Metallo were good (though also static), Darkseid I guess good but I think overrated, Brainiac and most others OK (only Mxtlpytkl and eventually Bizarro bad) but just OK.
Gilbert Gottfried was brilliant as Mxyzptlk.
I realize the New York Post is not exactly the world's most respectable or reliable news source, but I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this story, since it's apparently sourced from actual documentation about approved casting options for Superman '78:
Actors listed for Clark include:
And for Lois:
Wish the article provided the complete list of names instead of this cherry-picked selection, which features a number of predictable stars of the day along with a few surprises (mainly for Lois). I'm going to keep an eye out for additional info.
They're a Pulitizer prize winning paper that has broken a lot of important stories over the years. Yeah, like any NY (or UK) tabloid they can be too gossipy, but they're no less reliable than any other mainstream news organization, especially these days.
Reminds me of that SNL skit with Tim Kazurinsky holding up an issue of the Post that simply read ANDROPOV DEAD and being totally shocked at it.
"It's clear, it's concise...entirely opposite from what I've come to expect from the Post. They even spelled his name right!"
Natalie Wood probably could have been quite good, quite similar to but not better than Kidder as Lois. Brando would be ridiculous and Nicholson and Eastwood probably pretty bad as Clark, not able to keep enough of their typical sarcasm and overly-modernness out.
Dustin Hoffman as either Superman or Lex could have been real good but could have also been real miss, a lot of talent and potential but also varies a lot by direction and general tone (though as Lex with Donner probably pretty similar to what Hackman actually did).
Isn't Dustin Hofman too short for the role of Superman?
I feel like most of the Superman names have been heard before -- seems like pretty much every male star of the period was bandied about at some point, whether or not they fit the character even a little. It was mainly some of the Lois names I had never heard before, and which surprised me -- Lolita? Plenty O'Toole?
Of course, this appears just to have been a spitballed list of people DC would bless for the roles, not necessarily folks who were serious prospects.
(It's very hard to see Hoffman as a plausible Superman, though I've been forced to eat similar words before -- Jon Cryer as Lex Luthor, anyone? In any event, Hoffman wasn't mentioned in the article I cited, though I'm pretty sure he's one of the many names I've seen mentioned elsewhere over the years.)
I've read a couple of stories over the years that Patrick Wayne ("Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger" & "The People That Time Forgot") was the leading contender for the role of Clark Kent/Superman until Christopher Reeve auditioned for the part.
So I'm watching Season 1 of the Santa Clauses, the Disney + Sequel to the classic Christmas movies, where they re-introduce us to "Santa's son" who's name is Kal.
Why name your kid after your sexy neighbour, if your sexy neighbour doesn't keep you warm sometimes when your husband is working late?
Perhaps I missed something, but why in the 78 movie Luthor was sure that Kryptonite was harmful to Superman? And how did he know that particular green rock came from the same planet of the Man of Steel?
His implied genius? It's never explained in the movie itself. I guess we're supposed to just assume that he sees about the glowing green meteor that lands in Ethiopia and puts two and two together because weird green meteor and Superman surfacing in the news at roughly the same time.
The 1978 Superman is my all-time favorite superhero film but yeah, it's not without it's logical loopholes.
My impression from the scene has always been that he deduced the existence of kryptonite first, then went looking for evidence of its arrival. But yeah, "his implied genius" is the answer in any case.
It doesn't make a lot of sense... Let's just say it wasn't the writers' finest hour.
Ok, out of curiosity I watched the scene more carefully (I hadn't seen the film in a while).
According to the excellent movie-censorship site it is one of the scenes that was not changed in either the Extended Edition or the Directors Cut.
The dialogues are taken from subtitles (I wrote only the relevant parts).
(Luthor is fiddling with what appears to be a slide rule while consulting a book whose title I can't read. Otis and Teschmacher are reading the Lois' interview to Superman)
Luthor: Now, then... given the exact location of the galaxy that he mentions... and the proximity to our own solar system... it's amazing! Amazing! Too good to be true!
L.: In the interview, he says that the planet Krypton exploded in 1948. Ridiculous little freak took three years in a rocket ship to get to Earth.
L.: Fragments from the planet Krypton exploded and went into outer space.
L.: It is reasonable to assume that some of those particles of debris drifted to Earth. (Why it should be "reasonable"? Krypton was literally in another galaxy).
(Luthor tears a page from a book and throws it towards O. and T.)
T.: A meteorite found in Addis Ababa? Uh, I know I'm gonna get rapped in the mouth for this, but so what?
L.: So what? You mean, to us they are just meteorites. Fair enough. But the level of specific radioactivity is so high to anyone from the planet Krypton, this substance is lethal. (WTF?!?!)
Okay, this is worse than I remember. Luthor makes some truly remarkable leaps of logic. He's convinced that that meteorite comes from Krypton. With a lot of effort I can even believe it, maybe it arrived at the same time (but why then? It took the same time as Kal-El's capsule which I imagine was driven by some engine?) and the fact that it was glowing and green was quite peculiar.
But then BHAM! "so it must be lethal for Superman!!!". I can feel the palpable pain of the writers. "Okay, why does Luthor know that Kryptonite can kill Superman?" "Because!" "It seems enough to me, let's move on the next scene.."
How was Kryptonite discovered to be deadly to Superman in the comics?
If you could follow Luthor's train of thought, you'd have to be a genius on his level?
(I know, I don't really buy it either. But I am also very disinclined to fret much over it.)
Plus I doubt he's verbalizing every component of his reasoning.
(Again, what "reasoning"? But also again, who really cares?)
BTW, the scene does in fact have a few additional snippets of dialogue in the "Extended Cut," i.e., the three-hour TV edit.
Uh, didn't know! Something relevant?
The details vary, but usually by accident.
Separate names with a comma.