The Official Lois Lane Casting & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Herolee10]

Everyone would be up in arms if Alfred and Gordon were not in a Batman movie, but they seem to be alright with Lois, possibly, not being in a Superman film.

It's strange, since she is as important to the Superman mythos as they are to Batman. Maybe even moreso.

well it hasn't been completely confirmed yet on what Lois's status is in this film; and I think the problem as to why some ppl wouldn't care for Lois is because they just view her as simply a LI for Superman while ignoring everything else that she brings to the table.

 

[7heBoss]

Well something I would like to point out about this whole Superman/Lois is like Batman/Alfred thing is that. Alfred has been there for Bruce his whole life. There could be no possible explanation for his absence. However with the situation with Lois, he doesn't meet her until he goes to the Daily Planet. So if the Superman Movie took place before he works there, than the reason for her absence is obvious.

I'm pretty sure though that they would never remove Lois completely. I could understand not having her be the lead female role for the first movie, but I seriously seriously seriously doubt that they would just ignore her character. I wouldn't worry so much. Its not like it has been officially stated that she won't appear at all. Save the freaking out until there is a real reason

 

[Micah12345]

You're right about the alfred comparison, a better analogy would be commissioner gordon and lois.

 

[Herolee10]

Well something I would like to point out about this whole Superman/Lois is like Batman/Alfred thing is that. Alfred has been there for Bruce his whole life. There could be no possible explanation for his absence. However with the situation with Lois, he doesn't meet her until he goes to the Daily Planet. So if the Superman Movie took place before he works there, than the reason for her absence is obvious.

true, but this is a film about "Superman" supposedly, and logic states that Clark should be Superman by the time the second hour of the film comes around, so Clark will have to run into Lois lane there since she's heavily involved with his debut to the world officially.

I mean they can't have 2 hours of Clark being just Clark before he dons the suit.

 

[jmc]

Everyone would be up in arms if Alfred and Gordon were not in a Batman movie, but they seem to be alright with Lois, possibly, not being in a Superman film.

It's strange, since she is as important to the Superman mythos as they are to Batman. Maybe even moreso.

It's kinda different though, Alfred has been a part of Bruce's life since he was born, Lois came later in Clark's life. If this film is a 'Year One' type scenario as it were it would kinda make sense not to have Lois in it yet.

 

[Herolee10]

It's kinda different though, Alfred has been a part of Bruce's life since he was born, Lois came later in Clark's life. If this film is a 'Year One' type scenario as it were it would kinda make sense not to have Lois in it yet.

But you don't have Superman without Lois in it, because she's like the first person that he saves in his debut.

I mean, what are they going to do, just have clark become superman at the very end of the film? It wouldn't make sense for Clark to be flying around as Superman for the second half of the film with no sighting of Lois being there, and it would be disrespectful to have the exclusive go to another reporter.

 

[jmc]

I think other story avenues need to be considered other than she's the first person he saves. New franchise, new beginnings, new opportunities. A Lois-less film isn't gonna stop me from watching it. I'll make the point that it's not important that the series starts with the status quo in tact.

 

[Herolee10]

I think other story avenues need to be considered other than she's the first person he saves. New franchise, new beginnings, new opportunities. A Lois-less film isn't gonna stop me from watching it.

Well i'm not saying that it would stop you, however there are A LOT of fans out there who may rethink about wanting to see this film if Lois isn't in it, because she is a CORE character to the overall mythologies.

Lois isn't simply a LI for Superman; and a lot of ppl understand that. Even though Nolan revitalized the batman franchise, he still stayed true to the core aspects of Batman's mythology:

1. Parents gets killed in a mugging

2. Bruce travels the world and learns how to become Batman

3. Bruce returns to Gotham as Batman and forms a partnership with Gordon

4. Bat Signal is created


The same thing is for Superman, he has a certain amount of things THAT NEEDS to happen in a film, to have them gone, would be harming the film like Burton almost did with his stunt, and Lois meeting Superman in his early debut, whether rescued or not IS A PART OF THAT..and there are countless of comic books that would back me up on this.


Out of ALL OF THE CHARACTERS that have been introduced in the mythology, Lois Lane has been there as long as Superman has.

Lois has been there longer than the Kents, longer than Lex, longer than Clark's ability to fly as well.

To take Lois away from Superman's early days would be more dumber than what they did with Batman & Robin the film.

 

[jmc]

Based on what? It may makes sense within the context of the story to not have Lois or to limit her in the film. I'm not going to argue that Lois isn't an important character to the mythology, she very much is, but, that's not to say she has to play a major role yet, and I think that's what's being missed. We've all got a mental checklist of what's 'suppose' to be there but we all need to be a little more flexible with it on occasion. You don't have to shove everything about the character in one film, Nolan figured that out with Batman and I see no reason why the same principles shouldn't apply to Big Blue. Maybe the story takes place over a short period of time where there's not enough time for Lois, I dunno. As I said, it is important that the series does encompass the status quo at some point , but it doesn't have to be in film one.

 

[Herolee10]

Based on what? It may makes sense within the context of the story to not have Lois or to limit her in the film. I'm not going to argue that Lois isn't an important character to the mythology, she very much is, but, that's not to say she has to play a major role yet, and I think that's what's being missed. We've all got a mental checklist of what's 'suppose' to be there but we all need to be a little more flexible with it on occasion. You don't have to shove everything about the character in one film, Nolan figured that out with Batman and I see no reason why the same principles shouldn't apply to Big Blue. Maybe the story takes place over a short period of time where there's not enough time for Lois, I dunno. As I said, it is important that the series does encompass the status quo at some point , but it doesn't have to be in film one.

all I'm saying is that Lois HAS to be in this film in a role that does not equate to a mere cameo, and I do still believe that she will be in the film

In what role right now? I honestly don't know, but I do believe that she HAS to be in the film to some capacity and that she will be.

 

[jmc]

I think it's unlikely she won't show up, but it's not going to surprise me if her role is downgraded to a minor role to give the series a different starting point.

 

[Herolee10]

I think it's unlikely she won't show up, but it's not going to surprise me if her role is downgraded to a minor role to give the series a different starting point.

well as long as she's given what's been rightfully hers for as long as I remember, and that is to be the one who introduces Superman to the public by means of having the first exclusive on him, since that is one of her primary roles and to give that to someone else would be HIGHLY disrespectful.

And hell, if they could hint at the upcoming romance between her and Clark/Superman by the end of the film to move us into the sequel, then I'd be happy.

Course I'd be happier if they could give us more than just a hint, since like Nolan said, they should put as much as they can into what they have to work with for this film instead of just saving things for the next since a sequel is never always guaranteed.

 

[Advo]

^What you must also consider is that having Lois already as a full on LI for Superman in the first movie could quickly become tedious. They would have to drag out their love story for three movies - if they were to make them - or let them be together and all the suspense is gone. Spiderman had that problem. Yes, it's not good to save too much for the next movies, since you won't necessary get to make them, but on the other hand, they are trying to rebuild a franchise. If they check off the entire list already in the first movie, what are we supposed to be excited for in the next? It's a delicate balance.

And because Lois is in fact, a much more integrated character into the Superman world, her presence isn't completely gone but will be introduced gradually. They have started casting for (presumably) Lois so I'm believe she is in the movie.

It makes perfect sense to me because Clark will be travelling the world (according to the plot rumours) and regardless, it would seem like they are focusing on a young Superman because of Henry's age. So The Daily Planet and Lois might not be introduced until halfway through the movie and their roles will be smaller but it's a change that makes sense.

 

[BH/HHH]

Its quite funny how the rumours are saying we may get little to no Lois Lane in the film when in Superman Returns we got too much. Maybe that film and Bosworths Lois has given them cold feet about using Lois again this soon.

 

[elgaz]

Lois is a huge part of the Superman mythology, I can't imagine they're simply going to ignore her.

Seems more likely - if this is an origins type film - she doesn't show up until Clark's done his whole travelling the world thing and finally moves to Metropolis, which could be more than halfway through the movie for all we know.

As mentioned above, we didn't see a whole lot of Alfred in the first part of Batman Begins. Doesn't mean he wasn't there in the background - he just wasn't onscreen. I'm guessing it will be the same with Lois, and once she does get introduced she'll have a much larger role in the inevitable sequel.

 

[Two-Face]

Here's your Lois Lane:

I liked her in The Next Three Days with Russell Crowe. I'm liking her more for Lois role. I hope she gets it since Blunt turned down comic book roles before.

 

[Willi Berg]

Yes, I believe that we will get Lois as well as this other female character.

An aspect of the story could be that Clark has a love interest and it can't be Lois at this point because she doesn't know about his secret identity as Superman. So while she may be a potential love interest for Superman, Clark has his own love interest. Lois will probably not think of Clark that way, as we know she usually tends to ignore him.

 

[Advo]

Ugh. If they cast Olivia Wilde as Lois, they are welcome to cut out Lois at any point. DWN.

 

[Willi Berg]

After this news, I started thinking that maybe someone like Wilde (in terms of name recognition) may not even want the Lois part if it is not as prominent as first thought.

 

[hatebox]

After this news, I started thinking that maybe someone like Wilde (in terms of name recognition) may not even want the Lois part if it is not as prominent as first thought.

Wilde would still take Lois because she'd obviously have a larger role in the sequels whatever happens. I don't know how successful Cowboys and Aliens will be, but at the moment she's still a long way from being big enough to turn down a big blockbuster.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

bring on Wilde...she's smoking hot!

 

[BH/HHH]

Wilde all the way, like I said previously the female lead role may be for the first half of the movie and Lois will enter in the 2nd half.

 

[Majik1387]

I'm liking her more for Lois role. I hope she gets it since Blunt turned down comic book roles before.

Blunt had no other choice but to turn down Black Widow because Fox had her tied up to do that ****ty Gulliver's Travel movie and she couldn't get out of it.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

I wouldn't mind Blunt though either but Olivia Wilde makes my heart go pitter-patter

 

[BH/HHH]

I could get on board with Emily Blunt aswell