Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Dusty Ayres, Jun 20, 2010.
Hey, some of us grew up on that stuff!
Long live the Legion of Super-Pets!
Buddy, if I and millions of other can feast our eyes without guilt seeing The Runaways, the current Twilight movie, and so on, so can you.
Superman didn't name himself (in most, if not all, incarnations of the character). I doubt Supergirl would have much of a choice. The public will call her what they want. Besides, I think she's usually supposed to be about 16 in the comics.
I wouldn't mind them making it a running joke, though. "Look. It's Supergirl!" "I'm Superwoman!"
Waifs, sir. Waifs without the physique of a Kryptonian.
'Course, before Marvel claimed her, ScarJo would have done just fine. Oh well...
(And yeah, I know Reynolds looks as though he might still do both Green Arrow and Deadpool, but I don't think it's wise to cross the streams like that. Chris Evans doubling up is iffy enough, but at least most of us can agree to forget about his FF4s.)
There's no rule that says an actor can't work for Marvel and DC. (God knows I've written for both, and so has pretty much everyone else in the business.)
Besides Reynolds has already played Deadpool and Hannibal King. And Halle Berry was both Catwoman and Storm.
This is nothing new. Buster Crabbe played Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Tarzan. Tim Tyler played Captain Marvel, the Phantom, and the Mummy. Lon Chaney Jr. played Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, Dracula, and the Mummy. Roger Moore played James Bond and the Saint. Fess Parker played Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone. Clayton Moore played the Lone Ranger and Zorro . . . .
Not my choice for Supergirl, but apparently someone else's:
What's wrong with a "Power Girl" movie set in the Earth II universe? Superman is reaching the end of his career, having been active since the 1940's (and still lamenting all the lives he might have saved had his powers been more developed at the time of World War II). he's got crows feet and silver temples. Batman has disappeared from the map, having been replaced by the Huntress (rumored to be the spawn of the Bat and the Cat). Power Girl comes into the midst of all of this, unfamiliar with the alien culture that is Earth and more powerful than she is experienced. Superman tries to coach her but has other pressing business (his wife, Lois, is gravely ill and may not survive--preventing Superman from focusing as he should). I'd even throw a curve and have a STILL strong and for some unknown reason, VITAL, Earth-II Joker as one of the major villains.
None of this would compromise any future franchises for the individual characters as they are ALL alternate versions, set on a different world in a different time and place. This would be the world of the Justice Society--NOT the Justice League. I think something like this could be a SLAM-DUNK. Even people who didn't know Power Girl at all would be interested in learning why Superman looks so old in the previews.
THIS is what I'd like to see. Earth-II Power Girl coming of age to accept the mantel from the fading Superman of a by-gone era.
As others have said, Superman needs a successful, thriving franchise before they go off making feature films the second-rate heroes in his mythos.
I disagree. In fact, a "second-rate" hero from his mythos might be JUST the thing to spring board Superman back up there. Take the pressure off, first. Relax. Don't try so HARD to be brilliant and have some damn fun with it.
With trying to get "Superman" rebooted, they're not just swinging for the fences for a home-run; they're trying to get a GRAND-SLAM but with no runners on base. Ease up and get a few base-runners on the diamond before you worry about the big-score.
I think part of the trouble with incorporating Supergirl into a movie is being able to do it without Superman or (in a recent incarnation) Batman. Her character works best when playing off other major superheroes. That's why she might do well in a Batman/Superman movie series (perhaps in movie 2 or 3 of such a series).
Not to mention Harrison Ford. Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Rick Deckard all in the span of a few years, then Jack Ryan later on.
Of course, that's not even getting into animation. Paul Soles was both Spidey and the Hulk in the '60s; Bob Hastings was Superboy in the '60s and Commissioner Gordon in the '90s; Mark Hamill was the Trickster, the Joker, and the Hobgoblin; Ron Perlman was Clayface and (briefly) the Hulk before becoming Hellboy; and the list goes on and on.
1) Writing for and acting in are very different things, imho.
2) Aye, but Catwoman is already all but forgotten, as I expect XMO:W to be, especially since the prospective Deadpool movie sounds likely to ignore its continuity anyhow. And I assume that Hannibal King is Blade III, which, not being a costumed superhero, is a key difference.
3) Just because there's arguable serial cinema/non-superhero precedent doesn't mean that it should be followed.
What could a Joker do against a Kryptonian?! Nolan is batting one for two on Batman, imho, but he's exactly right to keep Supes and Batman in separate realities. And yes, I've read TDKR, and no, it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Wasn't there a wonder woman series last year? How'd that work out?
Look at it this way. Superhero movies are a genre now, like westerns or spy flicks. How many different cowboys did John Wayne play in his career? How many cops and detectives have Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis played? Why can't an actor (or actress) play multiple comic book characters?
As Christopher pointed out, nobody seemed to mind Harrison Ford playing multiple sci-fi heroes, in a couple of different franchises.
Heck, I think Anthony Hopkins has played at least two different U.S. Presidents . . . .
Actors play lots of similar characters over the course of their careers. What makes costumed superheroes and superheroines different?
(Also, what's so 'arguable' about my examples? Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Zorro, the Lone Ranger, the Phantom, Captain Marvel . . . . sounds like the same actors playing multiple superheroes to me.)
Series? No. There was an animated Wonder Woman movie in the DC Universe DVD feature line, and WW has appeared in a couple of other movies in that series (Justice League: The New Frontier in 2008 and Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths earlier this year), but they're all separate incarnations.
1. We're talking about an INEXPERIENCED Kryptonian in this scenario--one who fully understands neither the limits nor extremes of her powers and
2. He need not strike at HER personally in order to create chaos or cause her pain. The Joker (in both incarnations) tends to attack his targets indirectly, by hitting those his target cares about and by hitting her loved ones. Even random "innocents". Say the Joker vows to destroy a day-care every time Power Girl performs a super-feat. At any rate, I don't think he'd be the MAIN villain. I'd have to give the concept more thought before committing to who that might be. Definitely NOT Luthor in any incarnation (though if I remember right, Earth-II Lex Luthor was a hero with a full head of red hair, anyway). Luthor has been done to DEATH in Superman film projects. Don't wanna see no Luthor any time soon on film.
Another argument: What about all the genre actors who go back and forth between the various tv franchises, from STAR TREK to STARGATE to STAR WARS and so on. If Ben Browder and Claudia Black can go from FARSCAPE to STARGATE, or Walter Koenig can go from STAR TREK to BABYLON-5, why can't some movie star go from Marvel to DC and back again?
In a word, continuity. Harrison Ford may have been in Blade Runner, a very different kind of sci-fi than Star Wars, and Willis may have played McClane several times as well as lots of other cops, but those role's weren't ongoing franchises set in the same era. It's one thing for John Wayne to play lots of one-off cowboy roles several decades ago, but quite another thing for Reynolds to do two simultaneous costumed-hero franchises, especially when those roles might cameo in other costumed heroes' movies, as will have already happened to some degree if a Deadpool movie builds off XMO:W in any significant way.
It'd be like Rob Lowe doing a tv show in which he plays a political consultant that isn't Sam Seaborn, or Shatner playing a retired space captain in some Wing Commander movie. The flip side to continuity along multiple films is a weightier actor/role association.
Besides, this is a different filmic era than Wayne's or even Willis' (at the height of his stardom, that is). I myself'd like to see it be a more democratic, inclusive one. And if that means diminishing old-school movie stardom in favor of more aggressively unique casting, so be it. Why not try more looks, more ethnicities, more attitudes, more people? The talent is out there.
(Perfect example: one of the many reasons the Harrison Ford flick Firewall utterly failed for me was that it took him nearly an hour to punch someone after his family is held hostage. It's Jones/Solo/Ryan, for Pete's sake; I just couldn't forget his usual persona enough to buy him as a milquetoast.)
But if your original objection was that actors shouldn't do Marvel and DC simultaneously, that won't be problem. It's unlikely that Green Lantern will ever appear in an X-MEN movie--for obvious reasons!
More importantly, times may change, but the basic conventions of theatre don't. Just because an actor has played one iconic role in a genre, doesn't mean he (or she) should be blacklisted from any similiar roles for the rest of their careers. Audiences accept familiar faces in new roles every day. Otherwise movie and tv stars would never have careers.
Nobody walked out of AVATAR because, damnit, the leading man looks an awful lot like the latest TERMINATOR. Nobody turns off VAMPIRE DIARIES because, hey, didn't that actor get killed on LOST a few seasons ago? Different stories, different characters. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief.
And if, by chance, you actually end up with two characters previously played by the same actor in the same movie (which is really only going to happen once in blue moon), you just do what movies and tv shows have done since the dawn of celluloid: you recast one of the parts. It's been done before. It will be done again.
As for casting a wider variety of ethnicities in sci-fi and superhero flicks, I actually agree with you there. But that's a whole different issue. The objection I keep seeing all over the internet is "Oh no, so-and-so is already playing one superhero. He can't play another! And Marvel movies and DC movies aren't allowed to share actors. It's a rule!"
To me, that's like saying that actors who played James Bond aren't allowed to star in any other spy flicks. And that's just silly.
Separate names with a comma.