Henry Cavill IS Superman: - Part 9

[Adenjo]

Meanwhile over on the Watchmen boards... Henry Cavill suddenly became the hot topic

[Project862006]

lol thats how dead this board is lol

i guess we can go back to henry now

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by The Guard

The Comedian isn't supposed to be charismatic. He's supposed to be a brash, arrogant, violent ******* who TRIES to be, but is actually fairly socially awkward. The reason his actions are overlooked is because he's part of a superhero team, because he performs a service for the country, and because he's part of a political agenda. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was cast because he could portray this part of the character, not for his charisma, which is indeed somewhat limited.

The Comedian was a man who was all those things you listed, yet people didn't just barely tolerate him, they were drawn to him. Even though they found him to be quite scary and an a-hole most of the time, it seems like a lot of people couldn't help but kinda like him, despite their better instincts. It seemed like almost no one in the story legitimately hated the man, yet everyone should have. That's the power of charisma, imo, and JDM, like you said, has a limited ability to convey that.

Matthew Goode was well cast for the way Veidt was written, which was not a musclebound adonis, but the world's smartest man, which was the majority of the focus on his character. I won't argue that he wasn't just like the comics, but he was certainly every bit as skilled physically as he was there.

He didn't have to be just like the comics, I just had to buy him as what he was presented as. I didn't. He needed to be, while not necessarily "muscle-bound," a strong-looking Adonis. He wasn't. And his whole approach to the accent (I know what he was trying to do) was a miscalculation, imo.

It wasn't though. In an era of violent movies, it was meant to highlight the violence, and several other elements.

Those "other elements" were unnecessary to highlight, imo.

"Non supers not looking super" is not remotely the "point" of WATCHMEN.

Sure it is. The very premise of the story was to deconstruct the genre, examining what society would be like if regular people actually did this. When they don't come across as regular people, that is lost.

Pretty sure that really good fighters can do things like this. I've admitted there was some stylization and movie license taken, but they didn't look superhuman, except for Veidt, and that wasn't Snyder being stupid and forgetting he's not a superhuman, it was Snyder making him appear far beyond the other two.


You said that the movie failed to portray them as regular joes putting on costumes and fighting crime. I pointed out that, it, in fact, did, in character scene after character scene. Now you're concerned about strenght levels, which was not part of your original statement. Yes. The combat sequence was the only place to gauge strength levels/skills.

My original statement was ALL ABOUT strength-levels. I said the people I saw it with were under the impression that those characters had super-strength, which makes them irregular joes by default, no matter how many "character scenes" that explore their psychological hang-ups are featured. Like you said, Snyder stylized the fight scenes just for the sake of it, and the abilities of the main characters is the one thing he should absolutely not have heightened/stylized. IMO.

For the record, I didn't have a problem with the Veidt fight. That's when presenting someone as almost superhuman was essential to the story.

Look, I appreciate that you loved Watchmen. I didn't. Plenty of other people did, and plenty of other people didn't. I can assure you that neither of these camps are changing their minds any time soon. The slo-mo will never not feel gratuitous TO ME, the acting will never seem better TO ME, and I will never support the decision to present the fight scenes as Snyder did. Can we just agree to disagree on all of those points and move on to the movie Snyder's about to give us (which I do have very high hopes for, despite my feelings on his past projects)?

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

Sure it is. The very premise of the story was to deconstruct the genre, examining what society would be like if regular people actually did this. When they don't come across as regular people, that is lost.

Well if that's the point of the story in the GN, it certainly was lost in the film.

If someone asked me the point of Watchmen, I'd say it was about questioning the very nature of heroism by exploring all the different characters and how they go about being 'heroes'. The violent killer of criminals Rorschach, the morally optimistic Night Owl and Silk Spectre, the morally pessemistic and sadistic Comedian, the detatched and all powerful Dr Manhattan, and the warped Veidt who believes he saved the world by killing millions of people.

And there's nothing 'regular' about them.

It's not like Kick Ass where it's just normal people wearing costumes. I'd say the 'first wave' of Watchmen was more like that, and Dan talked about that over beers. But they evolved into something more than just guys who decided to start putting on costumes.

These people are a) seriously messed up, b) had or have ties with government and c) aren't without certain 'talents', especially Dr Manhattan who is very extreme version of a superhero born from a science experiment gone wrong.

Now, I've never read the GN. So it's very possible that they did miss the point of the GN by focusing on that, I don't know.

But personally, I prefer it that way. I prefer the kind of 'unreal' feel it had.

[Project862006]

the only people for me in the movie who were unreal were manhattan and veidt and both were like that in the comic

[The Guard]

The Comedian was a man who was all those things you listed, yet people didn't just barely tolerate him, they were drawn to him. Even though they found him to be quite scary and an a-hole most of the time, it seems like a lot of people couldn't help but kinda like him, despite their better instincts. It seemed like almost no one in the story legitimately hated the man, yet everyone should have. That's the power of charisma, imo, and JDM, like you said, has a limited ability to convey that.

I'm not sure who was supposed to hate The Comedian. Nite Owl and Rorschach both saw him for what he was, and reacted according to their own points of view. Veidt didn't seem too fond of him. Laurie still hated The Comedian. Sally, well, we know why she didn't hate The Comedian.

I don't think The Comedian was ever supposed to be that charismatic. He was just arrogant about his role in the government, and people responded to his position/celebrity. But he's still a rough, arrogant *******.

He didn't have to be just like the comics, I just had to buy him as what he was presented as. I didn't. He needed to be, while not necessarily "muscle-bound," a strong-looking Adonis. He wasn't. And his whole approach to the accent (I know what he was trying to do) was a miscalculation, imo.

Fair enough.

Those "other elements" were unnecessary to highlight, imo.

They’re the same elements the comic book highlighted. The nature of violence, and certain visual elements the graphic novel focuses on.

Sure it is. The very premise of the story was to deconstruct the genre, examining what society would be like if regular people actually did this. When they don't come across as regular people, that is lost.

And desconstructing the genre has nothing to do with whether they occassionally look somewhat superhuman.

And they’re not regular people. That's half the point of the story.

And no, the elements that WATCHMEN uses to deconstruct the genre are not lost, because that idea doesn't revolve around their strength levels, but their personalities, flaws, and worldviews.

My original statement was ALL ABOUT strength-levels. I said the people I saw it with were under the impression that those characters had super-strength, which makes them irregular joes by default, no matter how many "character scenes" that explore their psychological hang-ups are featured.

Then the people you saw the movie with are, as I said, incapable of assessing things in context. A few sequences of stylized action don't outweigh an entire film's character explorations.

Like you said, Snyder stylized the fight scenes just for the sake of it, and the abilities of the main characters is the one thing he should absolutely not have heightened/stylized. IMO.

No. That is not what I said. I said he stylized the fight sequences for a reason. Part of it has to do with the fetish elements of superheroing, and part of it has to do with showing the more violent nature of these characters. He didn't really heighten their abilities in terms of making them superhuman, so much as he made them more comparable with superhero/action fighting styles of today VS the 80's.

Look, I appreciate that you loved Watchmen. I didn't. Plenty of other people did, and plenty of other people didn't. I can assure you that neither of these camps are changing their minds any time soon. The slo-mo will never not feel gratuitous TO ME, the acting will never seem better TO ME, and I will never support the decision to present the fight scenes as Snyder did. Can we just agree to disagree on all of those points and move on to the movie Snyder's about to give us (which I do have very high hopes for, despite my feelings on his past projects)?

Fair enough.

Well if that's the point of the story in the GN, it certainly was lost in the film.

No...it wasn't.

If someone asked me the point of Watchmen, I'd say it was about questioning the very nature of heroism by exploring all the different characters and how they go about being 'heroes'. The violent killer of criminals Rorschach, the morally optimistic Night Owl and Silk Spectre, the morally pessemistic and sadistic Comedian, the detatched and all powerful Dr Manhattan, and the warped Veidt who believes he saved the world by killing millions of people.

And that’s part of it. There's a lot more to it, and there's a lot more to the film.

And there's nothing 'regular' about them. It's not like Kick Ass where it's just normal people wearing costumes. I'd say the 'first wave' of Watchmen was more like that, and Dan talked about that over beers. But they evolved into something more than just guys who decided to start putting on costumes.

These people are a) seriously messed up, b) had or have ties with government and c) aren't without certain 'talents', especially Dr Manhattan who is very extreme version of a superhero born from a science experiment gone wrong.

Exactly.

Now, I've never read the GN. So it's very possible that they did miss the point of the GN by focusing on that, I don't know.

Nope. They more or less nailed the point of the GN.

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I'm not sure who was supposed to hate The Comedian. Nite Owl and Rorschach both saw him for what he was, and reacted according to their own points of view. Veidt didn't seem too fond of him. Laurie still hated The Comedian. Sally, well, we know why she didn't hate The Comedian.

I don't think The Comedian was ever supposed to be that charismatic. He was just arrogant about his role in the government, and people responded to his position/celebrity. But he's still a rough, arrogant *******.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

They’re the same elements the comic book highlighted. The nature of violence, and certain visual elements the graphic novel focuses on.

The comics didn't highlight anything. Every panel is a highlight. That's the nature of the medium. The only way they put more emphasis on something was through repetition and close-ups, which could already be (and were) done in the film. Things like the sex scene or Laurie escaping the explosion didn't need to be slowed down or "highlighted," imo.

And desconstructing the genre has nothing to do with whether they occassionally look somewhat superhuman.

And they’re not regular people. That's half the point of the story.

My definition of "regular" here = non-superhuman. So yes, they were regular, and yes, imo, that is essential to the premise, which in turn is essential to the genre deconstruction.

And no, the elements that WATCHMEN uses to deconstruct the genre are not lost, because that idea doesn't revolve around their strength levels, but their personalities, flaws, and worldviews.

But the fact that they are not super human is an essential part of those personalities, flaws and worldviews, imo.

No. That is not what I said. I said he stylized the fight sequences for a reason. Part of it has to do with the fetish elements of superheroing, and part of it has to do with showing the more violent nature of these characters. He didn't really heighten their abilities in terms of making them superhuman, so much as he made them more comparable with superhero/action fighting styles of today VS the 80's.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I just meant that you said he stylized it, and I'M saying it wasn't for a good reason. Snyder has reasons behind most of the creative decisions he makes, but that doesn't mean those reasons are particularly good (just look at his misguided female "empowerment" in Sucker Punch). I personally feel like like the "mere mortal" quality of the characters was far more important than tapping into the superhero iconography of the 80s vs today, so despite him having a valid reason, I still don't agree with the choice he made.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

Well if that's the point of the story in the GN, it certainly was lost in the film.

If someone asked me the point of Watchmen, I'd say it was about questioning the very nature of heroism by exploring all the different characters and how they go about being 'heroes'. The violent killer of criminals Rorschach, the morally optimistic Night Owl and Silk Spectre, the morally pessemistic and sadistic Comedian, the detatched and all powerful Dr Manhattan, and the warped Veidt who believes he saved the world by killing millions of people.

And there's nothing 'regular' about them.

It's not like Kick Ass where it's just normal people wearing costumes. I'd say the 'first wave' of Watchmen was more like that, and Dan talked about that over beers. But they evolved into something more than just guys who decided to start putting on costumes.

These people are a) seriously messed up, b) had or have ties with government and c) aren't without certain 'talents', especially Dr Manhattan who is very extreme version of a superhero born from a science experiment gone wrong.

When I say regular, I don't mean "normal." I mean non-superhumans. The ONLY superhuman in the story is Dr. Manhattan (though Veidt comes damn close). All the other characters were just screwed up, sad people who dressed up and fought crime (yes, a lot like Kick-Ass), which was why Dr. Manhattan was such a game-changer for them. And of course the original story is about all those themes you mentioned above, but when I say "point," I mean "basic premise." Yes, they developed government ties and got better technology over the years, but the jumping off point of the entire premise of the story was, "what if people read those first superhero comics in the 1930's and '40's, took them as inspiration, and actually did this." The story's entire alternate history was based on that one concept (Dr. Manhattan was totally different "what if" curveball that came in decades later). To me, a requisite for successfully carrying out that premise is to NOT heighten the abilities of the non-superhumans.

Now, I've never read the GN. So it's very possible that they did miss the point of the GN by focusing on that, I don't know.

But personally, I prefer it that way. I prefer the kind of 'unreal' feel it had.

Only because you've never read the GN.

[JAK®]

The reality of the GN (or, more accurately, miniseries) is overstated. There are plenty of sci-fi attributes present. Most notably the existence of Dr. Manhattan, which is pure comic book fantasy.

It has always been the realism of the characters, the politics and how the heroes affected the world they lived in that has been praised. The notion that it is 'realistic' in the sense that it resembles our own world has little basis.

[batman44]

Today is Henry Cavill's birthday. He turns 29.

[OXFORD]

Yeapppp happy birthday to him

[hopefuldreamer]

I wonder if we'll see any drunk celebration pics?

[Rockstar]

I was just about to post 'Drunk celebration pics to follow.'

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Is there anything to read about how Superman will be personality wise?

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I was just about to post 'Drunk celebration pics to follow.'

Great minds think alike

[ChickenScratch]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

Great minds think alike

Fools seldom differ.

[Prime]

Henry watching a rugby match, on his birthday (May 5th)....

[Prime]

And Henry with some rugby players:




You know, since WB isn't doing anything to let people know there is a new Superman coming out, these pics are the only ´´news`` related to MOS.

[Rust]

Sadly, yes. Not long now before we get some official.

The first pic of Cavill at the rugby-match has a very Superman-staking-out-as-Clark-Kent-vibe about it. Like brown stuff is about to hit the fan and he knows it.

Yeees, the lack of news makes me think like that.

[hopefuldreamer]

Somehow, I didn't peg him for a rugby lad Fair play though, I guess he's even manlier than I thought!

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by Prime

Henry watching a rugby match, on his birthday (May 5th)....

Who needs set pics.

Look, there is Superman.

[Rust]

Superman finally gone viral.

[Asgard]

Just need to add glasses to complete the scene of Clark Kent seeing some bad stuff coming and getting ready to transform into Superman.


Looks more like Dayman than Superman here.

[I Am The Knight]

Not sure what Adele means by "real life Superman"

[Asgard]

Yeah, shes mistaking the actor Henry Cavill with me.

Its all good though.

[hopefuldreamer]

So where was that match?

I mean, I know it's the UK, but how close to me are we talking?

... No, I'm not a stalker