Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Thread Manager, Nov 10, 2012.
Most likely this ^
I wonder though, if Snyder will release a director's cut.
So what happens if it is 2hr & 19 minutes?
I wonder if this will delay the JLA film?
I'd be more worried about the future of the MoS franchise if Robinov is out. He's the one who kept Snyder around.
All we can do is cross out fingers and hope the film does good enough box office to please these greedy mofos. Keep in mind 400 million worldwide wasn't enough for them, with Superman Returns.
Are you kidding??! A lot can happen in a minute. I have to have that minute. As a matter of fact, I want 10 more. 2hr 30min no less!! Or I'm not seeing this movie.
Rumor mill suggests he drives some of the talent away too, but again, rumor mill.
I feel like they used Alan Horn as a scape goat now he is killing it at Disney.
I am hoping for a less is more approach with this movie. 2:10 to 2:15 is fine for me. Heck they should be able to tell the story in about 2 hours in my opinion.
SPIDEY Made 700 ish this year, i think Warner would be fine with around 700, because i just don't see this film grossing a billion.
Batman Begins - 2:20
The Amazing Spider-Man - 2:16
Iron Man - 2:06
Those films did fine with telling the origin. I'll be happy with a 2:15 Superman movie.
Being serious now, I'd totally go for a great 2:10 over a good 2:20 plus. I just want a Superman movie I can be proud of and be able to watch over and over again like I can with only a very small few of my favorites. I can watch them with new eyes every time. Movies I can quote from start to finish. That's what I want. They "should" be able to do a lot of things. Easier said then done.
Absolutely. I think Raimi's Spider-man was 2:01.
I have no problem with Superman Returns, to me it has a place, but I look to Man Of Steel to be a new chapter for Modern Superman.
They throw out Horn for Jeff Robinov. And what does he do as a result? Only start running Disney and get George Lucas to sell his company to them.
Sweet call, WB.
That's right. He may have driven Chris Nolan away from Warners. I wonder if Chris and Emma will actually be involved in the MoS press after they backed away from JL.
Well I don't think so.I'm betting on 2hr and 30min.
To cover the origin and growth in the first film, I'd say as long as it is over 2 hours there will be enough time. 2:15-2:20 sounds good to me.
I think we talked about this the other day, but I believe they thought they were going to lose him and Horn's contract was running out, so they just put him out to pasture.
That's one of the rumors, and also a rift with Tull over at Legendary. Who knows, two sides to every story.
I can see 2:30 minutes too.
Anything over two hours seems like plenty.
If MOS does well critically and financially next year, whoever is in charge will keep Snyder around for a sequel or two.
Although with the slow project developments at WB, I personally blame that on Jeff Robinov. It just seems like he's turned into another Tom Rothman, unless it's a director/producer he's BFFs with. Alan Horn got a lot right while he was at WB, and I don't know why Bewkes drove him out. When you have a chairman that revived the Batman franchise and made a successful-book-to-movie 8 film series (Harry Potter), you'd figure they'd keep the man who's brought in the talent and money.
Bewkes should be on the look for the next Alan Horn, not who'll be working with Robinov.
The funny thing is, if any of the rumors are true and Robinov caused rifts with some of the talent and doesn't even end up becoming the "chairman", it all seems rather pointless.
In a way losing Robinov would be a good thing for WB.
2 hours would be perfect in my opinion, I don't get when people want 3 hour movies. 2 hours us more than enough I get restless not long after.
"Do you base that on the whole 20 some seconds of footage we saw and 2 sentences we heard of him in MOS or do you base it on some of his previous performances? Just curious!"
I was refering to Tudors and TCLOD. Havent seen Immortals, but I dont reckon I'll find much new from Cavill in that.
"I think it's apples and oranges really. Clark Kent and Superman are not the same as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I agree that Cavill needs to excel in his role but I don't think the emotional aspect will be the same as what Garfield had to do. And I honestly think Garfield tends to get a bit overrated. He's not that good of an actor and I personally didn't really like his performance in TASM. Just came off like a snotty teenager with an attitude problem to me. A bit *****ery and not very convincing in a lot of scenes. But that's just me.
Speaking of Cavill, I went through the trouble of acquiring and viewing all of his performances in the past year as I was very unacquainted with him before and I wanted to check him out. I actually just finished with The Tudors about a week ago. I'll say this, he's not a great actor by any stretch of the imagination, but what I saw in him (particularly through the 4 seasons of The Tudors) was all the qualities needed for an actor to portray a great Superman. Now that doesn't mean that he will but it's there.
What Im talking about is presence, charm and to a slightly lesser extent charisma. Cavill has those 3 qualities and he has the ability to portray it believably in front of the camera. I always felt he was the best in two situations, one where he had to portray a stoic, authoritative figure - he has a strong and commanding presence and two, when the role required him to be charming. He just has this natural charm, really the same thing that Reeve had, the smile the mannerisms and with it charisma. Particularly in the romantic scenes or when he is being a bit seductive, he always displays a good dose of charisma. And I think that's what important for Superman himself. Cavill is also good with portraying intensity and good in action scenes. So as Superman, he can have a slight edge to him and display intensity in a battle, then display kindness and charm as he saves a child and finally he can exhume the presence of a great hero as he addresses the public/media, whatever. Just an example.
As for Clark Kent, well, I think he can handle a mild mannered reporter. I've seen Cavill in situations where he appears like a really normal guy, almost one you wouldn't notice and he seems pretty private and calm in general as a person. Quite a contrast to certain situations, such as the red carpet for Immortals premiere, where he carries himself with confidence and swagger and really appears charismatic.
I did notice a lot of negatives with him of course. I don't want to write too much about his acting (maybe in the Cavill topic) but he is really prone to overacting, especially in scenes where strong emotion is required. Fear, sadness, anger. He also breaks character often and becomes visibly self conscious and start to lose control of his expression, doing annoying things like biting his upper lip (he does that in quite a few different roles, it's a natural human reaction to when we think we are in the center of attention in a crowd, for example). He is also inconsistent with his line delivery. In one moment in The Tudors, I was genuinely impressed by his delivery and acting but then in the next scene I was genuinely WTF?? when his delivery fell flat and didn't carry the emotional resonance that it should. And yes, he can be stiff and wooden as well, although far far less as the likes of Tom Welling for example.
But he is also talented. As said, he can emote, he does have good line delivery and he's shown to be a good TV actor and an average-solid movie actor but most importantly he has the 3 qualities I mentioned previously and enough acting talent to believably translate to the screen. You don't need to be an Oscar caliber actor to be a great Superman. I think Cavill is pretty much on par with Reeve based on their performances (I've seen most from Reeve) and definitely a better actor than some of the guys preceding him in the role.
I also think he can improve, but im not sure if he'll even want to. Perhaps he'll just let his career peak as Superman. Many actors work on the craft, have classes even go to schools and many of them (today considered great actors) didn't peak or really shine until in their late 30's. I'd love to see what Cavill would be like under a really great director. Sadly, Snyder isn't it, in terms of directing actors. Let's just say, I don't think Snyder will direct anyone to an Oscar anytime soon.
And that's another thing. Did Snyder recognize those qualities in Cavill and direct him accordingly? Does the script do justice to the character? It remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen if Cavill will rub off a bit from his supporting cast. When people are surrounded by their betters, be it in film, sports, music it can cause them to up their own level considerably. The biggest indicator of what Cavill is made of, will be in his scenes with Shannon. Shannon says he has a lot of scenes with Cavill. If Cavill manages to survive those without getting completely chewed up, that'll be a feat in itself, as Shannon is a an incredibly powerful actor who always makes the lesser ones around him look like set furniture.
So to conclude this long ass post that nobody will read, LOL, Cavill has the look, he paid his dues in the gym and got the physique, he did the research and I believe he has the talent and the qualities and the rest is up to Snyder and the script itself. I think the potential is there for Cavill to shine and really leave a mark on the role. And as others have mentioned, he better. The franchise is ridding on him more than on anyone else really. If he doesn't win the public over and make them want more of his Superman, well, that'll be a failure.
Sure, Superman and Clark Kent the reporter are relatively easy to portray, but this movie looks like it'll deal heavily with Clark before becoming the two aforementioned characters, the so-called Smallville-Clark, which I guess is the one character I'm focused on. The young man raised by the Kents. He's the one who requires a somewhat wide range of emotion since he's the first REAL character. Perhaps we should call him Kal-El instead, since he's both Smallville-Clark and what will become Superman.
But anyways, the grown up Smallville-Clark is the one who'll introduce us to this version of Superman and the one who has to convince me of his emotions, thoughts and actions. Cavill has to be believable to convey those aspects.
I think a running time around 2hrs and 15mins to 2hrs and 20 mins is the best of both worlds. You have the best chance at moving at a good pace while covering all the neccesary stuff. The reason why I said it was hard to imagine the film being less than 2hrs and 30 mins is all the stuff they seem to be covering. We have Krypton, Smallville and Alaska before we even get to Metropolis. Granted, we have no idea how much time they're actually spending in these areas. How much time we're spending in Alaska is the wildcard.
As for Cavil, I'm hoping for the best but he's no gaurantee right now. From what I've seen of him he's never blown me away. He's never really stood out. He does have some natural charisma which at times seems to get lost on screen. I do like the fact that he has a Superman look without looking like a clone of Christopher Reeve. The worst thing would have been to cast a Christopher Reeve imposter which is what I felt they did with Routh. No offense to Routh.
Ha I have the same problem when I'm typing posts on this board on what to refer to him as. I always type Kal since that's his true name to me cause it's what was given to him at birth. But I always think that other members here would prefer he be referred to as Clark.
Cavill = Cav-L= Kal EL.