Henry Cavill IS Superman: - - - - - Part 14

[Lily Adler]

As a WW fan, which popular fan cast choice do you think could play the part and have chemistry with Henry.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Kind of wish Antje didn't get cast as Faora because she would be a damn near perfect WW.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

As a WW fan, which popular fan cast choice do you think could play the part and have chemistry with Henry.

I'm not sure yet. Someone mentioned Lynn Collins earlier today, and I like her look somewhat, but I'm still not convinced she's right for the role.

 

[Lily Adler]

I like the idea of Emily or Gemma playing the role, and I'm leaning towards Emily because of her Amy connection. But then I wonder what happens when they try to explore a possible Supes/WW romance and create a love triangle with Supes/WW/Lois.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

As a WW fan, which popular fan cast choice do you think could play the part and have chemistry with Henry.

Gina Carano?

 

[Lily Adler]

How about no.

I don't care if she gots her hand in Cavill's proverbial cookie jar. I will never like her for the role.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I like the idea of Emily or Gemma playing the role, and I'm leaning towards Emily because of her Amy connection.

Emily?

 

[Lily Adler]

Blunt. She's one of my top five for WW.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I love Emily Blunt. Hope Marvel doesn't snag her for a future movie because I really would love her for WW.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

How about no.

I don't care if she gots her hand in Cavill's proverbial cookie jar. I will never like her for the role.

Just curious - what don't you like about her? At first glance she seems to have everything necessary for the role. She's a beautiful woman but one who's also strong and in great shape, and approximately the right age. We know she can fight. But she's also landed roles in some high profile films (Fast and Furious 6). And it seems fairly clear she would have chemistry with Cavill.

Granted, I have never actually seen one of her movies.

 

[Lily Adler]

I've seen Haywire and wasn't that impressed with her. She was decent and even though she has the warrior side of WW covered I believe she lacks the tenderness needed to truly capture the character.

Which brings me to a common complaint I have with most WW fan casting. Most seem to cast with the idea that WW is simply a character who's sole purpose is to be blood-thirsty T&A and not a multi-facet character like Superman or Batman.

I love Emily Blunt. Hope Marvel doesn't snag her for a future movie because I really would love her for WW.

 

[AnneFan]

Reading some MOS reviews, you would have thought Cavill was some emotionless, dull cardboard cut-out. I didn't find that.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Blunt. She's one of my top five for WW.

Tanit Phoenix, who looks a bit like Blunt, was once considered for the recent TV version of the role, but she lost to someone else.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I've seen Haywire..

That's all you needed to say.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Reading some MOS reviews, you would have thought Cavill was some emotionless, dull cardboard cut-out. I didn't find that.

I've seen it 5 times already and I have still yet to see that anywhere. He had such a subtle charm to him. I still can't see how MOS is emotionless. Cold maybe, but far from emotionless.

 

[Asr]

She's already in Thor (and hence the Marvel movie-verse) but I would've liked Jaimie Alexander as WW.

 

[br0adband]

Tanit Phoenix, who looks a bit like Blunt, was once considered for the recent TV version of the role, but she lost to someone else.

/cue the soundbyte of Maccauley Culkin's character in Uncle Buck when he meets him for the first time:

"WHO ARE YOU?!?!"

Not bad, not bad at all, never even heard of her before so... lots of potential apparent to mine eyes, lots of potential.

 

[AnneFan]

I've seen it 5 times already and I have still yet to see that anywhere. He had such a subtle charm to him. I still can't see how MOS is emotionless. Cold maybe, but far from emotionless.

Agreed. I had read reviews which stated he didn't smile, which is flat untrue. I didn't really find him 'brooding', either. I found him more 'quiet' I suppose. A good soul finding his place in the world.

I actually got quite emotional during the rocket send-off sequence, which surprised me given I've seen the moment lots of times in past Superman media. This concept of this little baby alone in space is timeless.

 

[Lily Adler]

I've seen it 5 times already and I have still yet to see that anywhere. He had such a subtle charm to him. I still can't see how MOS is emotionless. Cold maybe, but far from emotionless.

Maybe their rose-colored glasses were slightly cracked.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Reading some MOS reviews, you would have thought Cavill was some emotionless, dull cardboard cut-out. I didn't find that.

Critics who say that totally miss the point of this version of Clark, which is somebody who has been raised and trained to always hold back - to not let people know who he truly is.

As Cavill says in interviews, he intentionally focused on Clark's loneliness and his alienation (no pun intended) from humanity. The fact that the performance comes off as reserved doesn't mean he's "wooden," but rather that he accurately portrayed the character as Goyer wrote him. I for one thought it was a fresh and interesting interpretation of Superman.

The critical mauling of MOS has actually discredited mainstream film critics for me in a way that I don't think any other film has. It's like they attacked the film for not being a carbon-copy of the Donner films. But we had that already in 2006 and fans viewed the results as almost universally disappointing. Yet critics seemed perfectly happy with SR, which just shows how far their opinions are from this film's target audience.

Anyway, I heard somebody say recently that the advent of the Internet has made professional film critics obsolete, since now anyone can publicly post their opinion on a film - and I agree. Good riddance.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Critics who say that totally miss the point of this version of Clark, which is somebody who has been raised and trained to always hold back - to not let people know who he truly is.

As Cavill says in interviews, he intentionally focused on Clark's loneliness and his alienation (no pun intended) from humanity. The fact that the performance comes off as reserved doesn't mean he's "wooden," but rather that he accurately portrayed the character as Goyer wrote him. I for one thought it was a fresh and interesting interpretation of Superman.

The critical mauling of MOS has actually discredited mainstream film critics for me in a way that I don't think any other film has. It's like they attacked the film for not being a carbon-copy of the Donner films. But we had that already in 2006 and fans viewed the results as almost universally disappointing. Yet critics seemed perfectly happy with SR, which just shows how far their opinions are from this film's target audience.

Anyway, I heard somebody say recently that the advent of the Internet has made professional film critics obsolete, since now anyone can publicly post their opinion on a film - and I agree. Good riddance.

I've said this so many times to the point that I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll say it again: it's the tale of two movies. But I think we've already said our piece about the critics and RT as a whole and I really don't wanna get into that again.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

To tell you the truth, I re-watched Superman: The Movie last week for the first time in a while, just because I was craving for another Superman fix until my next viewing of MOS. Maybe it was because it's been a while since I've watched it, but I just appreciated it so much. The Krypton scenes are stately and intriguing. Brando's performance as Jor-El gave the character gravitas, particularly if you were watching this in 1978. And the Smallville sequences are amazing. Every frame is beautiful - Norman Rockwell all the way.

That said, it might be significant that I lost interest and turned off the movie after the initial montage of Superman saving people. It's not because I don't like the whole movie, because I do. But it was like after seeing Christopher Reeve as Superman save a bunch of people, that was enough for the night. I think it's because all the scenes with Lex/Otis/Miss Tessmacher are just a completely different tone. Whenever I see those characters onscreen, the movie instantly seems to revert to the tone of the '60s Batman series.

Anyway, the point is that Donner did the Silver Age Superman as well as anyone could have done - and that's great, and his contributions will always be appreciated. But at the same time, I'm sick of watching the Donner version over and over and having everybody act like that is the only viable interpretation of the character.

What I loved about MOS above all else was its audacity to do something different with Superman. That's absolutely what the character needed, and I don't give a damn if critics want to live in the past and act like anything that doesn't slavishly imitate Donner is a mistake. **** them. I love MOS precisely because it takes risks and tries new things.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

And Zod forbid they try to take risks and try something new. I'm actually glad they did those things. They have, for better or worse, gotten people talking.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

And Zod forbid they try to take risks and try something new. I'm actually glad they did those things. They have, for better or worse, gotten people talking.

The great thing about Superman is that he's such an iconic character, if you do something even slightly different with him it's even more jarring for the audienced. That's why I think the teaser poster of Supes in handcuffs was so effective.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Critics who say that totally miss the point of this version of Clark, which is somebody who has been raised and trained to always hold back - to not let people know who he truly is.

As Cavill says in interviews, he intentionally focused on Clark's loneliness and his alienation (no pun intended) from humanity. The fact that the performance comes off as reserved doesn't mean he's "wooden," but rather that he accurately portrayed the character as Goyer wrote him. I for one thought it was a fresh and interesting interpretation of Superman.

Not only was it refreshing; it was closer in many respects to the way Superman is historically portrayed in the comics. For instance, while I very much appreciate what Christopher Reeve brought to the role, the way his Superman interacted with the infamous diner bully (in Superman 2) was completely out of character. First off, Superman isn't vengeful. Secondly, no matter how bad or slighted he felt, Superman would never use his powers against a normal human being the way he does in Donner's script. Don't get me wrong, I personally loved the scene when I first saw it, and I certainly don't think less of that particular version of the character because of the choice he makes. It's just that, if people are so quick to scrutinize Cavill's performance, it's important to point out that Reeve's version wasn't as squeaky clean as they would like to believe.