Oldguy said:
Wow, reading comprehension still isn't your thing is it? I never said Reeve is the definitive Superman. Is it so difficult to respond without putting words in my mouth?
SR is a tribute to StM. But Routh is retconning Reeve out, now Routh is the son Brando sent to Earth, Routh is the one who resides in the Donner FoS. Routh is replacing Reeve in this continuity.
The topic at hand is do you think there is a chance this may backfire, like the animosity a young boy might have towards a stepfather.
Contrary to what you think, Donner's vision isn't the only viable option for Superman. I think the inevitable comparison to Reeve would have been easier avoided with an original restart.
I love how you say I put words in your mouth, and then you say basically those words. Excuse me for summarizing.
BRANDO didn't send REEVES to Earth. BRANDO is not sending ROUTH to Earth.
JOR-EL is sending KAL-EL to Earth.
Is this really so hard to understand? These actors ARE NOT THE CHARACTERS, they play a character and these characters exist both beyond and outside them, the mantles of which available for whatever new actor comes along.
And you're misusing Retconning. Retconing is changing the past history of a character. They are not changing the past history of a character, their accentuating it. Plus, Singer has remarked this is a "vague" history, which totally bombs any idea of retconning.
This is the equivelant of saying that Roger Moore retconned Sean Connery out of the Bond movies. Or Pierce Brosnan retconned Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It's a logical inaccuracy that arises from not using the word properly.
They're not saying that Routh is a different Superman, Pal-El, who was instead sent to Earth instead of Kal-El. He's playing Kal-el.
Really, you need to draw your lines between reality and cinematic fiction.
