Henry Cavill Cast As Superman

I loved Routh too, wish they gave him a better chance. The writing of Returns was a little dull, but now I’m worried its gonna go the dark and gritty route, which is annoying.

I guess you only read the parts of my response you wanted to see…thats cool…i said “either don’t make the movies at all (which is a legitimate response) or just want them to continue with the same actors and stories even though some of those stories (like Superman) are 20+ years old OR the actor/writer/director might not want to be involved anymore or the last movie just SUCKED”

yeah i used or to state that it could be more then one reason…the second Hulk was an apology for a horrible movie before it. Spider-Man reboot is so they keep the rights and spider-man 3 SUCKED Ass..

A lot of people did think Ang Lee’s Hulk was terrible – they’re the same dumbasses who think Michael Bay films are “awesome!”

I know now what the Mayans were predicting. Zack Snyders Superman is expected for a December 2012 release. You’ll believe a man can flop.

A Brit playing Superman? I guess when your Director is a Brit and his greatest success came with a Brit playing Batman you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I watched the Tudors so I’ve seen Cavill over the course of a couple of seasons. I have to say it’s an intriguing choice.

Very disappointed . . . was really hoping that they would build off of 10 years of the popular Smallville and bring forward the cast, especially Tom Welling. Oh well.

Nolan is a producer. Snyder, the director is American.

Honestly, I think Hollywood is its own worst enemy for young American talent. With so many opportunities on your doorstep its easy to get picky, pick easy roles or high paying roles. In Britain young actors have to do what will feed them.

He was on “The Tudors”

For the same reason that panthers and eagles cannot.

Sorry you’re right off course Snyder is an American. I think the due to his track record Nolan has to be the main force in terms of casting. Only someone with his clout can rein in the visually spectacular yet, to my mind, bombastically unfulfilling storytelling of Snyder. 300 and Watchmen had their moments but lacked substantial character arcs or heart. Superman’s story has got to have a lot more than balls to the wall visuals and painted abs. With Goyer and Nolan as architects on the project I expect brilliance. Every Superman fan does.

Targetting the interests and obsessions of Silver Age fanboys has been DC’s bread and butter for the last decade, which is why they’ve been rebooting Superman again, and again, and again, and again for the sole purpose of undoing the modern age origin and replacing it with subpar interpretations that are increasingly more derivative of the Silver Age iteration.

But anyway…

I remember when the point of a sequel was to answer any questions left over by the original and not solely done to make more money.

I particularly remember how that has been used to mock movie sequels that solely existed to make money. How many times have we seen on TV shows or cartoons that parody these things were a character questions the sequel’s existence and wonders what questions were left over by the original that justified the sequel’s existence?

Who knows, maybe that’s what Singer and his writers were thinking that they were creating a franchise with a story arc told across multiple movies, and that’s why they left the plot of Super boy dangling unresolved.

“Targetting the interests and obsessions of Silver Age fanboys has been DC’s bread and butter for the last decade”
I disagree, but only as applied to movies, which is what we are discussing. There has not been enough movie content to support this premise. The Bat franchise does not do this, nor did Jonah Hex. We have not seen GL yet, so we do not know about that one. So SR is the only supporting evidence for this idea.

“I remember when the point of a sequel was to answer any questions left over by the original and not solely done to make more money”
I do not believe that this has ever been the case. This is just a romanticized notion that we carry from our youth. These are studios, businesses, they exist to make money and not answer questions.

“How many times have we seen on TV shows or cartoons”
This is an unfair, apples to oranges, type comparison. The medium of TV is against ‘one-shot’ type of material, and more about serialzed storytelling.

“Who knows, maybe that’s what Singer and his writers were thinking that they were creating a franchise with a story arc told across multiple movies, and that’s why they left the plot of Super boy dangling unresolved”
Yes, I mentioned this. Further, I described how it is a bad idea. Please, demonstrate for me a way, given the confines of the reality that we live in, that this is a good idea.

In the prequel comic she met Richard very soon after Superman left Earth, which is why she believed that Jason was his son.

So you’re basically implying that Lois Lane slept with Superman one night, then Richard shortly after (within at least a week to be confused over who impregnated her to be believable).

In other words Lois Lane is a tramp – no wonder Superman left her!!!

This guy ruled all on ‘The Tudors’. This is great news.

Humans and Kryptonians (that is to say, Lois (sometimes Lana) and Kal-El) have been breeding for decades.

Superman has has a multitude of children in countless Elseworlds and imaginary stories, sometimes with Lois, sometimes with Lana, sometimes with someone else.

As for mainstream continuity (not that the fanboy writers know what that is anymore), Armageddon 2001 comes to mind as an example of an instance in which Lois died while trying to carry a Kryptonian baby to term. That wasn’t so much an Elseworlds as a possible future that could have come to pass had things turned out different.

Another example of Superman’s progeny in mainstream continuity (from the Pre Crisis) would be Kent Shakespeare and Laurel Kent, who were Superman’s descendants in the 30th Century.

It’s interesting how your example of Clark having a spine is from before he became a mask that Superman wears.

Once that happened, Clark ceased to exist in BR and became a flesh suit that Superman wears to… well, actually, who knows why he wore it. When Clark is a false identity he doesn’t serve much of a purpose at all.

The idea of Clark Kent, newsreporter, is so that Superman can become aware of an emergency through the newswire and whatever other means of communication existed in the late 30s, but today, in the digital age of IPhones, IPads, and the Internet, false Clark doesn’t provide Superman with anything.

Superman could have an SPhone that provides him with instant alerts to where he is needed at any given time. He doesn’t need to waste time dressing up as a geek.

Now, when Clark is real he provides a very necessary function, it keeps him connected to his human roots, it gives him the opportunity to do human things like date, go to the movies, eat dinner with friends, etc.

In Birthright, Clark is friendless… why? Because “it’s the cost he has to pay”? That’s BS because A) that is NOT the reason Jor-El sent Kal-El to Earth, to be a super hero who hides behind a pair of glasses and has no friends, he sent him to Earth to survive the destruction of their planet, and, B) In today’s era, Superman, as I point out above, doesn’t need to pretend to be Clark in order to save people. All he needs is an IPhone.

Andrew Garfield is a BAFTA winning/ Golden Globe nominated actor who is known for doing challenging scripts