Gregorius said:
I can't complain about Brandon Routh's performance. Actually, some plot elements and the downright hideous costume (what was Singer smoking when he approved that monstrosity?) disappoint me more than the casting.
Personally, I've been rooting for Tom Welling to put on the suit since day one. True, he may not have the chiseled look some of us find essential in Superman, if he can pull off a teenage Clark as well as he has, I think he could at least play a decent adult Superman. You have to consider that he looks boyish on Smallville partially because they put makeup on him to acheive just that effect. Try to picture him with much less youth-inducing makeup and maybe a tad bit of face-hardening makeup, and I think you'd have a good vision of what a TW Superman would look like. I really don't think it's fair to SV fans to present a compelling epic about Superman's coming-of-age only to deny us the pleasure of seeing this rich reinterpretation brought to its logical conclusion. It's almost a waste of all the effort and success that SV entails..
Tom looks 30ish, especially now. Way too old to be playing a teenager, so it works out. I think he may have the right look (obviously not the Chris Reeve Superman) but for his own Superman, like Dean Cain did...
But I can't honestly see him pulling off the Clark Kent/Superman duality as believeable while Brandon made them seem like two different people (probably thanks to Singer's direction as he goes for the realism factor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4J79W6NCTk
That was what sold me about Brandon and why this was such a hard role to cast. Without even considering the major acting needed to pull it off, you also need someone with no real distinguishing features that blends into the background as Clark and can be made into a regal, powerful hero as Superman. It was tough.
I've seen Tom with glasses. Even facially, he looks the same and he has pretty noticeable exaggerated features; wide flared nostrils, huge lips etc. It would be pretty obvious to the people in Metropolis that his Clark and Superman are one in the same.
Gregorius said:
Regarding the comparative mood (light vs. dark) of recent superhero films, I must say I'm growing frustrated with the popular misconception that "contemporary" and "light" are mutually exclusive styles. In order for something to be considered really "modern" in the superhero genre anymore, it has little choice but to go the gritty, dismal route, and that's just not right. I'd be the last to advocate a return to the campiness of the '60s and '70s, but I think our tastes as a general public are beginning to shift too far to the other extreme. Batman may be the exception, since the very nature of the character entails a somewhat darker mood, but one of the things that's always appealed to me about Superman is that he's usually one of the more optimistic superheroes. Cynics ridicule him as an "overgrown boy scout," but the truth is that's exactly what he is and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You know Singer goes for that dark realism in all his movies. I think it will continue in the sequel but it will feel alot more justified given what is likely to be Brainiac in an action/scifi film, according to Singer at the con.
I commend him for trying to do something different with SR than his usual projects. To do a epic romance story thats more of an artsy flick than a summer popcorn one. But, I think he'll go back to his usual formula with the 2nd one. Some diversity isnt bad but it was risky to try something like this for the first film in the series.
However, Ive never seen a superhero film handled like SR so I'm grateful that it was at least attempted once in history.
