Henry Cavill ("The Tudors") is new Superman
David
BREAKING: Henry Cavill Lands Superman
By NIKKI FINKE AND MIKE FLEMING
EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures have found their new Man
of Steel. Deadline had been hearing for the past weeks that Henry
Cavill was the frontrunner for the much coveted Clark Kent/Superman
role in this much anticipated reboot. But as of last week, Warner Bros
film chief Jeff Robinov hadn't seen Cavill's or the other screentests
and made his decision in recent days. Repped by CAA, Cavill just
wrapped production on The Cold Light of Day and stars in the upcoming
Immortals, opening this fall. Directed by Tarsem Sing, Caville in
Immortals plays the he-man Greek warrior Theseus who battles
mythological gods including Poseidon, Zeus, Minotaur, and
Herecles.Given that set up, Warner Bros clearly has chosen a more
macho leading man for Superman than the previous Brandon Routh. Cavill
also has a past with Superman. Before Bryan Singer came on to direct
Superman Returns and cast Brandon Routh, Cavill had been one of the
frontrunner choices for directers Brett Ratner and McG when they were
going to helm the picture. That Superman was younger, and this time,
the intention was to cast an actor near 30. Cavill will be 28 this
year, so things worked out just right for him.
The new film from Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures is being produced
by Christopher Nolan and directed by Zack Snyder, who made this
statement: “In the pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the most
recognized and revered character of all time, and I am honored to be a
part of his return to the big screen. I also join Warner Bros.,
Legendary and the producers in saying how excited we are about the
casting of Henry. He is the perfect choice to don the cape and S
shield.” Other producers include Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, and
Deborah Snyder. The screenplay is being written by David S. Goyer
based on a story by Goyer and Nolan. Thomas Tull and Lloyd Phillips
are serving as executive producers. The new Superman is targeted for
release in December 2012.
Professor Bubba
<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The new Superman is targeted for
> release in December 2012.
Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
Madlove
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
plausible prose man
This is a pretty good choice if your script is heavily based on an
existing graphic novel. I hope Alex Ross has a role in the art
department.
> > who made this
> > statement: “In the pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the most
> > recognized and revered character of all time, and I am honored to be a
> > part of his return to the big screen. I also join Warner Bros.,
> > Legendary and the producers in saying how excited we are about the
> > casting of Henry. He is the perfect choice to don the cape and S
> > shield.”
In at least some of the photos I've found of him online, he seems to
have a rugged handsome face like you would expect Superman to. If
you're not careful, though, you can make him look a bit like Ted
Cassidy.
> > Other producers include Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, and
> > Deborah Snyder. The screenplay is being written by David S. Goyer
> > based on a story by Goyer and Nolan. Thomas Tull and Lloyd Phillips
> > are serving as executive producers. The new Superman is targeted for
> > release in December 2012.
>
> There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.-
You know, apart from he didn't look like Superman and he had no idea
how to bring the character to life except "imitate Christopher," and
he was in a bad costume in a bad movie with a terrible script which
took the character several steps backward to an era of superhero
movies that weren't as satisfying as they'd become since the last of
those had come out.
KalElFan
news:pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com...
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/henry-cavill-chosen-as-new-superman/
> ... Before Bryan Singer came on to direct Superman Returns and
> cast Brandon Routh, Cavill had been one of the frontrunner choices
> for directors Brett Ratner and McG when they were going to helm
> the picture. That Superman was younger, and this time, the intention
> was to cast an actor near 30. Cavill will be 28 this year, so things
> worked out just right for him.
Here's the younger Cavill circa 2001-2002 when they were filming a movie
version of the Count of Monte Cristo:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3084425472/nm0147147
Definitely too young looking back then, more Superboy than Superman.
He could have tried out for Smallville, as Routh had but he lost out to
Welling (Jensen Ackles was reportedly up there too).
But now seven from the last couple of years, starting with The Tudors:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3621099008/nm0147147
Now a long shot and closeup, both from the same publicity event for
The Tudors:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3746272768/nm0147147
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3544946176/nm0147147
So you can definitely start to see it there. Choosing a few from a Google
image search:
http://ones2watch4.com/content/wp-content/gallery/henry-cavill/henry-17.jpg
http://www.showbiz-i.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/henry-cavill-shirtless-cold-light-of-day-01.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/062vaUidWK4Ao/340x.jpg
And then this Superman mock-up at a fan site that may have been there
before the choice was announced:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/HENRY%20CAVILL!.jpg
So he definitely looks like he's ready to play the part now. Haven't seen
him act, but his movie choices and casting to date suggest he can. He
doesn't have the name recognition, but if Nolan and Goyer and Snyder
have the thing right creatively that won't be needed and Cavill is a
very good casting choice I think.
> ... The new Superman is targeted for release in December 2012.
I like this scheduling too, 34 years after the first Reeve movie. Get it
out of the way of Summer and the blockbuster du jour literally every
Friday.
In the intermission at the NHL All-Star game they just had Three Doors
Down doing their Kryptonite song. Good or Bad omen? :-)
Ian J. Ball
If you don't need someone who can get through a single line-reading
unscathed, then yeah.
Otherwise, no.
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
Superman Returns is a great film, I have watched it over 86 times.
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
He is a fine actor, I've enjoyed his performances in many different
works.
Super-Menace
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> And then this Superman mock-up at a fan site that may have been there
> before the choice was announced:
>
> http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/HENRY%20CAVILL!.jpg
>
> So he definitely looks like he's ready to play the part now.
As long as it's not in *that* suit.
David
the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Superman Returns is a great film, I have watched it over 86 times.
Is Netflix okay with you not sending a movie back if you're snowed in?
redhawk
> "David" wrote in message
>
> news:pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com...
>
> >http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/henry-cavill-chosen-as-new-superman/
> > ... Before Bryan Singer came on to direct Superman Returns and
> > cast Brandon Routh, Cavill had been one of the frontrunner choices
> > for directors Brett Ratner and McG when they were going to helm
> > the picture. That Superman was younger, and this time, the intention
> > was to cast an actor near 30. Cavill will be 28 this year, so things
> > worked out just right for him.
>
> version of the Count of Monte Cristo:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3084425472/nm0147147
>
> Definitely too young looking back then, more Superboy than Superman.
> He could have tried out for Smallville, as Routh had but he lost out to
> Welling (Jensen Ackles was reportedly up there too).
>
> But now seven from the last couple of years, starting with The Tudors:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3621099008/nm0147147
>
> Now a long shot and closeup, both from the same publicity event for
> The Tudors:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3746272768/nm0147147
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3544946176/nm0147147
>
> So you can definitely start to see it there. Choosing a few from a Google
> image search:
>
>
> http://www.showbiz-i.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/henry-cavill-shir...
>
> http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/062vaUidWK4Ao/340x.jpg
>
> And then this Superman mock-up at a fan site that may have been there
> before the choice was announced:
>
>
> So he definitely looks like he's ready to play the part now. Haven't seen
> him act, but his movie choices and casting to date suggest he can. He
> doesn't have the name recognition, but if Nolan and Goyer and Snyder
> have the thing right creatively that won't be needed and Cavill is a
> very good casting choice I think.
>
> > ... The new Superman is targeted for release in December 2012.
>
> I like this scheduling too, 34 years after the first Reeve movie. Get it
> out of the way of Summer and the blockbuster du jour literally every
> Friday.
>
> In the intermission at the NHL All-Star game they just had Three Doors
> Down doing their Kryptonite song. Good or Bad omen? :-)
They'll have to sell me on SuperBrit, apparently Simon Cowell was not
available? Kate Middleton as Lois Lane may be next if this Anglophile
trend gets out of control.
Dano
"He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
news:425a74bd-739d-4284...@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> > > recognized and revered character of all time, and I am honored to be
>> > > a
>> > > part of his return to the big screen. I also join Warner Bros.,
>> > > Legendary and the producers in saying how excited we are about the
>> > > casting of Henry. He is the perfect choice to don the cape and S
>> > > Deborah Snyder. The screenplay is being written by David S. Goyer
>> > > based on a story by Goyer and Nolan. Thomas Tull and Lloyd Phillips
>> > > are serving as executive producers. The new Superman is targeted for
>> > > release in December 2012.
>>
>> > There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>>
>> If you don't need someone who can get through a single line-reading
>> unscathed, then yeah.
>> Otherwise, no.
>
> He is a fine actor, I've enjoyed his performances in many different
> works.
Thank you Mrs. Routh.
Duggy
<cough> Can't act <cough>
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> You know, apart from he didn't look like Superman and he had no idea
> how to bring the character to life except "imitate Christopher,"
That was his fault, sure, but that's why Singer hired him. Singer
wanted someone to imitate CR.
> he was in a bad costume in a bad movie with a terrible script which
> took the character several steps backward to an era of superhero
> movies that weren't as satisfying as they'd become since the last of
> those had come out.
Once again, more Singer than BR's fault.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Superman Returns is a great film, I have watched it over 86 times.
I'm sorry to hear about your extraordinary rendition experiences.
===
= DUG.
===
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
I've had Dexter season 3 disc 2, 3, and 4 for over a year, I keep
meaning to get to it.
ravenlynne
Henry Cavill is hot as hell, but not my picture of SM. But then, I grew
up with christopher reeve, so no one is going to fit. I'll judge it on
it's own merit.
--
Currently Reading: Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Yeah, same thing happened with Clooney in B & R: He didn't have a
chance to be good or bad because the writing absolutely sucked.
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ. -- Ghandi
A forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man. -- Henry Manning
Anim8rFSK
<014b37f4-9e2e-4548...@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Wow. You were a LOT more impressed with Routh than I was!
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
They've got the super gay super suit over on Smallville now. :(
David
What if that's their only copy and someone's been waiting for the next
episode all this time? Or do you not care??
Super-Menace
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <300120111919467940%fort...@arctic.com.invalid>,
> Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <8qm6c...@mid.individual.net>, KalElFan
> > <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And then this Superman mock-up at a fan site that may have been there
> > > before the choice was announced:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/HENRY%20CAVILL!.jp
> > > g
> > >
> > > So he definitely looks like he's ready to play the part now.
> >
> > As long as it's not in *that* suit.
>
> They've got the super gay super suit over on Smallville now. :(
That is terrible news. I remember seeing the Bryan Singer suit on a
clothes dummy or something in the Fortress on Smallville, which was
depressing, but that was back when there was a glimmer of a ghost of a
billionth of a chance that they would be making Superman Returns Again,
or whatever.
Then they did the recent episode that was partly set in 2017, and we
saw a flash of the standard cape -- really red, with a yellow S -- and
I had hope.
There is still a little time for them to fix this mess, but not much.
Professor Bubba
<raven...@somecraphere.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 1:01 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
> > In article<pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com>, David
> > <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The new Superman is targeted for
> >> release in December 2012.
> >
> > Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
>
> Henry Cavill is hot as hell, but not my picture of SM. But then, I grew
> up with christopher reeve, so no one is going to fit. I'll judge it on
> it's own merit.
I grew up with George Reeves, so they could pretty much get the cable
guy to play Superman, and I'd be okay with that.
I'm not familiar with Henry Cavill. Good luck to him.
Superman Returns was pretty much a clusterfrak (and I don't blame
Brandon Routh for that), but I still wonder what they intended to do
for a sequel. They had Lois heavily involved with a decent guy, a kid
who was going to age steadily between movies, and everybody apparently
okay with Superman having deserted them for years, thousands of
innocent people dying in floods and plane crashes during that time.
Where were they going to go from there? Turn Lois's boyfriend into
Brainiac? Spin the world backward until everybody forgot about the
first movie? What?
KalElFan
news:df7ffe59-aa94-44e4...@k4g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> ... apparently Simon Cowell was not available?
You know, if he can handle the dialect Simon Cowell IS Lex Luthor. It's
inspired. I think he could pull it off and people coudn't resist going to
see the performance. The movie needs some fun. Good call redhawk. :-)
> Kate Middleton as Lois Lane may be next if this Anglophile trend gets
> out of control.
Not Lois, but a cameo for William and Kate perhaps.
For Lois... reasonably attractive brunette actress, 25ish, who can play
smart and is neither expensive nor famous enough to overshadow
Cavill. I'm thinking a budding SF genre princess the fanboys will like
since they've cast Cavill for the female moviegoers. Research yields:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2931458048/nm0935541
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1938064640/nm0935541
Mary Elizabeth Winstead IS Lois Lane. :-)
KalElFan
news:300120111919467940%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
> As long as it's not in *that* suit.
I think the suit criticism has always been way overdone. The
property has been so completely shot to heck the last 25
years that it has bigger problems. Maybe this one will go
full style over substance and have 3D CGI and such, and
action and just be fun, and that'll be the hook that gets
them $250M+ and a half billion worldwide.
Have low expectations and nobody's disappointed. It's hard
to see how the movie can "lose" relative to expectations this
go round. Nolan is just EP and nobody would be expecting
a Best Picture Oscar winner, just some reasonably good
entertainment.
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
Ehhh.
KalElFan
news:300120112250100230%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> ... They had Lois heavily involved with a decent guy, a kid
> who was going to age steadily between movies, and
> everybody apparently okay with Superman having deserted
> them for years, thousands of innocent people dying in floods
> and plane crashes during that time. Where were they going
> to go from there? Turn Lois's boyfriend into Brainiac? Spin
> the world backward until everybody forgot about the first
> movie? What?
It actually would have been simple to fix. Singer had already
said the sequel would basically be Wrath of Brainiac, following
the Star Trek approach of an action-packed sequel to boost
the series. When you have Brainiac you have Krypton backstory,
and so you fix the apparent abandonment of Earth as having
involved some threat to Earth that Superman knew was coming.
In other words, Brainiac again and suddenly 95% of what was
wrong with Superman Returns makes sense. It even makes for
a very good continuous series stretching back to the first two
Reeve movies.
The boyfriend gets offed by Brainiac but you keep the kid. Give
Spacey a rest for the sequel and cast Brainiac well with a big
enough star. Bring back Routh and Bosworth. That's what they
should have been doing instead of this. I'm hoping they can't
lose with this relative to expectations, but Zack Snyder... 300...
Watchmen.. I'm sorry there is Major Debacle potential here if
they try to blend Superman into that kind of director vision.
You thought Burton could have bastardized it? This could be
worse if they don't realize it's a completely different thing, and
so they'll have to be careful.
Anim8rFSK
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, the actual red cape, with the actual S that that talentless moron
Singer said couldn't be done (what a maroon!) is a shining beacon of
hope for the entire city of Metropolis!
Christopher M.
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:8qmqpa...@mid.individual.net...
> "Super-Menace" wrote in message
> news:300120111919467940%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
>> As long as it's not in *that* suit.
>
> I think the suit criticism has always been way overdone. The
> property has been so completely shot to heck the last 25
> years that it has bigger problems. Maybe this one will go
> full style over substance and have 3D CGI and such, and
> action and just be fun, and that'll be the hook that gets
> them $250M+ and a half billion worldwide.
>
> Have low expectations and nobody's disappointed.
They'd have to be pretty low. I don't remember another movie where so many
people left early, except for maybe Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. And Pee-Wee
went on to become successful. Not nearly as successfull as the legendary
Steve Guttenberg, but the same can't be said for Superman Returns.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
Skydiver
> For Lois... reasonably attractive brunette actress, 25ish, who can play
> smart and is neither expensive nor famous enough to overshadow
> Cavill. I'm thinking a budding SF genre princess the fanboys will like
Ah, I know just who you mean!
> Mary Elizabeth Winstead IS Lois Lane. :-)
You misspelled "Summer Glau".
Duggy
> For Lois... reasonably attractive brunette actress, 25ish, who can play
> smart and is neither expensive nor famous enough to overshadow
> Cavill.
The last Lois wasn't a brunnette.
===
= DUG.
===
Christopher M.
news:ii5eb8$903$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Summer Glau does seem more down-to-Earth and practical than Elizabeth
Winstead.
KalElFan
news:b301e07b-e61c-484a...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> The last Lois wasn't a brunnette.
Well even better! You can also have this Mary Elizabeth Winstead:
http://img.listal.com/image/351167/936full-mary-elizabeth-winstead.jpg
http://www.angelic-scarlett.com/mary-elizabeth-winstead.jpg
KalElFan
Viable, but a bit older than Henry and if they only did a sequel every
three years she'd be pushing 40 by the time of the third movie.
redhawk
Nothing against Winstead, but further research also yields:
http://griffyclan007.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/015.jpg
Granted they should get Vandervoort a better wig for the movie. :-)
KalElFan
news:be457f1e-55ad-4ec8...@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Nothing against Winstead, but further research also yields:
>
> http://griffyclan007.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/015.jpg
>
> Granted they should get Vandervoort a better wig for the movie. :-)
I thought of her too but I think playing Supergirl would make it
very unlikely Warners would cast her as Lois. If the Cavill series
has sequels, I'd like to see her play Supergirl though. There'd
be no confusion with Smallville because it's anchored with the
two new leads in the movie, not Welling and Durance.
Adam H. Kerman
>Superman Returns is a great film, I have watched it over 86 times.
Would you believe the opening titles and then I popped in a porno instead?
Martin Phipps
>
> news:df7ffe59-aa94-44e4...@k4g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ... apparently Simon Cowell was not available?
>
> You know, if he can handle the dialect Simon Cowell IS Lex Luthor. It's
> inspired. I think he could pull it off and people coudn't resist going to
> see the performance. The movie needs some fun. Good call redhawk. :-)
Lex "Simon" Luthor: Look, Mister... I'm sorry, what's your name again?
Superman: Superman.
Lex: Superman? Really? That's what people call you?
Superman: Kal-El.
Lex: Right. Kal, let's be honest here. What's with the tights?
Superman: It's my costume.
Lex: Your costume? Is this Halloween?
Superman: I'm a superhero.
Lex: Oh, okay, fine, you're a superhero. And what does that mean?
Superman: I save people.
Lex: What? Dressed like that?
Superman: Can we get past the costume?
Martin
KalElFan
news:37354547-ad60-4df6...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Bravo!
Merrick Baldelli
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com>, David
><diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The new Superman is targeted for
>> release in December 2012.
>
>Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
That's what I was thinking, although Cavill does have some of
the physical features to pass off as the Man of Steel. As long as he
doesn't quite have the vapid look Brandon Routh had in Superman
Returns I might actually be up to watching another attempt to milk
that cash cow.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli
the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
As long as he doesn't open his mouth and say a line, I agree.
Merrick Baldelli
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 7:47�am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
>Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>
><cough> Can't act <cough>
I concur. And even the Gag Reel from Season 3 of Chuck
indicates that. Particularly in the first 10 seconds.
Klaatu
news:pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com...
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/henry-cavill-chosen-as-new-superman/
>
> BREAKING: Henry Cavill Lands Superman
> By NIKKI FINKE AND MIKE FLEMING
>
> EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures have found their new Man
> of Steel. Deadline had been hearing for the past weeks that Henry
Great. Another shaved, preppy, puppy-boy to play the Man of Steel.
(keyword: MAN).
FAIL!
Dano
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37354547-ad60-4df6...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
I like it Martin. But I'd prefer a real actor, like Kevin Spacey for
example, reading those lines myself. I can just hear him delivering them
that much better. Using his "Swimming With Sharks" or "Wiseguy" persona.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:01:23 -0500, Professor Bubba
> <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <pp8bk6dku0p65fud0...@4ax.com>, David
> ><diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The new Superman is targeted for
> >> release in December 2012.
> >
> >Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
>
> That's what I was thinking, although Cavill does have some of
> the physical features to pass off as the Man of Steel. As long as he
> doesn't quite have the vapid look Brandon Routh had in Superman
> Returns I might actually be up to watching another attempt to milk
> that cash cow.
Seriously, the vapid look helps them intercut the terrible CGI Superman
more easily.
Seriously.
shawn
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:04:07 -0800 (PST), Duggy
><Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 31, 7:47 am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
>>Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>>
>><cough> Can't act <cough>
>
> I concur. And even the Gag Reel from Season 3 of Chuck
>indicates that. Particularly in the first 10 seconds.
I swear I felt like he was told to pretend he was a block of wood
while he was on "Chuck." Maybe that's being unfair to a block of wood
because while it wouldn't be able to talk it would act like you
expect. Routh, on the other hand, didn't even act particularly human
while he was on the show. No idea how he did as Superman but it
couldn't have been much worse than he did on Chuck.
Duggy
Nicely done.
===
= DUG.
===
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
There's another scene on that very same gag reel where Scott
Krinsky comes out in his underwear (while Routh is standing there in a
towel) completely gagging the scene with Routh and Yvonne Strahovski.
Strahovski (and the crew) are completely cracked up and Routh is
standing there completely blank to the joke and not even remotely
smiling let alone reacting. Only when Strahovki and Krinsky walk off
scene that he shows any reaction and only then when he realizes that
gag was making it to the reel.
I think he's a block of wood. No matter who told him to act
that way or not.
Anim8rFSK
James Sidbury
<2f043e42-f2f9-49d5...@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
"He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole"
>
> Superman Returns is a great film, I have watched it over 86 times.
I find that difficult to believe.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where can I see this gag reel?
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>> >>><cough> Can't act <cough>
>> >>
>> >> I concur. And even the Gag Reel from Season 3 of Chuck
>> >>indicates that. Particularly in the first 10 seconds.
>> >
>> >I swear I felt like he was told to pretend he was a block of wood
>> >while he was on "Chuck." Maybe that's being unfair to a block of wood
>> >because while it wouldn't be able to talk it would act like you
>> >expect. Routh, on the other hand, didn't even act particularly human
>> >while he was on the show. No idea how he did as Superman but it
>> >couldn't have been much worse than he did on Chuck.
>>
>> There's another scene on that very same gag reel where Scott
>> Krinsky comes out in his underwear (while Routh is standing there in a
>> towel) completely gagging the scene with Routh and Yvonne Strahovski.
>> Strahovski (and the crew) are completely cracked up and Routh is
>> standing there completely blank to the joke and not even remotely
>> smiling let alone reacting. Only when Strahovki and Krinsky walk off
>> scene that he shows any reaction and only then when he realizes that
>> gag was making it to the reel.
>>
>> I think he's a block of wood. No matter who told him to act
>> that way or not.
>
>Where can I see this gag reel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALXZcbyCiI
M.O.R
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:20:50 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The chances of Allison Mack getting cast are slim to none. She does
the old "deer caught in headlights" method of acting too much, and she
is irritating in small doses. A two hour film would be torture.
For those of you who have never seen Henry Cavill act, here he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysnvqmqBAQ
Taken from the Tudors, but don't worry, it is totally safe for work
(honest, not pulling a prank). The Tudors is normally expilicit, but
this clip has been edited for youtube . Anyway, the character he
plays, Charles Brandon, goes from a total cad who thinks only of
himself (similiar to King Henry) to a mature, responsible adult over
the course of the entire series. Anyway, as you can see in this clip,
they have aged him significantly beyond his 27 years.
Apparently, he has the women's vote in terms of the audience. I can
understand some people's apprehension to a British actor being cast as
another American Superhero, but it is the director's job to find an
actor who can play the role, not based on his/ her nationality, but
based on their ability. Considering KEanu Reeves played John
Constantine, amazingly badly, I think. Still, be grateful for this
casting, since at one point Jude Law was considered. At another
point, so was Colin Farrell.
And no matter what people's opinions of this casting, Colin or Jude
would have been far, far, far worse.
David Barnett
I've now seen a picture of him on the imdb site & I still can't remember him
as Charles Brandon.
He does not look like a suitable candidate for Superman IMHO.
--
David Barnett
Adam H. Kerman
>Apparently, [Henry Cavill] has the women's vote in terms of the audience.
>I can understand some people's apprehension to a British actor being
>cast as another American Superhero, but it is the director's job to
>find an actor who can play the role, not based on his/ her nationality,
>but based on their ability. Considering KEanu Reeves played John
>Constantine, amazingly badly, I think. Still, be grateful for this
>casting, since at one point Jude Law was considered. At another point,
>so was Colin Farrell.
Constantine was a superhero? Keanu was miscast, but the movie was still fun.
Should have been a character actor, a younger version of Darren McGavin.
Jude Law can act, usually.
KalElFan
news:300120111301230823%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
Well I thought Cavill seemed like a pretty good choice and still do,
but after doing considerable surfing and such the last couple of
days there is much dissent. He's British, some pictures make him
look unsuitable, he's Not Welling, he's Not Routh, blah blah blah.
Some of that is always expected, but the magnitude of the blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah strikes me as somewhat similar to the
response Routh got, only worse. With Routh, at least he was
American, as all the Supermen have been, and he only had Not
Welling to contend with. Here Cavill is British and is both Not
Welling and Not Routh, and if the spectre of 300 and Watchmen
isn't enough they may be threatening to cast a Lois Lane (Kristin
Stewart or Rachel McAdams) to blow what's left of the poor guy
off the screen.
Yes, there are Routh fans. The movie grossed $200M+ domestic
and $400 million worldwide theatrical, folks, less than five years
ago. Probably well over 50 million people have seen it by now,
worldwide. Smallville may not have been seen by quite as many,
perhaps half that, but they've bought DVDs up the wazoo and
they're passionate. Superman hasn't been done right in more
than 25 years now, and when you add a more fractured core
fan base than ever it's not ideal to understate it.
Another planetary disaster may be overstating it because it'll be
bound to do Superman Returns numbers one would think.
Cast Justin Bieber as Jimmy Olsen maybe, and Stewart as Lois
Lane since she'd probably work cheap or maybe even pay
Warners to get her out from under Twilight. :-) Go for a 75%
female audience with some male tag alongs and to heck with
the fanboys. It's not like the Superman franchise has much
left beyond this next shot at it anyway, so just rely on Bieber
and Twilight fans to stack the house. Would that work? And
if it did that'll be a good thing because... ?
They should do a trilogy of all three incarnations alternate
Decembers, Cavill in 2012, Welling in 2013, Routh in 2014 and
so on, with cameo crossovers and additional crossover in the
2021 finale with Cavill (his 4th movie and last in the series of
10 movies). It would unite the fan base and gross $5 billion
worldwide over the course of the 10, double that not being
at all out of the question.
No vision though, and even a few online nattering ninnies
send them running for cover.
Christopher M.
news:8qrvm8...@mid.individual.net...
> "Professor Bubba" wrote in message
> news:300120111301230823%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
>
>> Oh, good. Another planetary disaster in the making.
>
> Well I thought Cavill seemed like a pretty good choice and still do,
> but after doing considerable surfing and such the last couple of
> days there is much dissent. He's British, some pictures make him
> look unsuitable, he's Not Welling, he's Not Routh, blah blah blah.
>
> Some of that is always expected, but the magnitude of the blah,
> blah, blah, blah, blah, blah strikes me as somewhat similar to the
> response Routh got, only worse. With Routh, at least he was
> American, as all the Supermen have been, and he only had Not
> Welling to contend with. Here Cavill is British and is both Not
> Welling and Not Routh, and if the spectre of 300 and Watchmen
> isn't enough they may be threatening to cast a Lois Lane (Kristin
> Stewart
No fucking way.
> or Rachel McAdams) to blow what's left of the poor guy
> off the screen.
I like Rachel McAdams, but she's a little too Elvish to be Lois.
> Yes, there are Routh fans. The movie grossed $200M+ domestic and $400
> million worldwide theatrical, folks, less than five years
> ago.
Wake up.It's a Superman movie. Of course people are going to see it.
> Probably well over 50 million people have seen it by now,
> worldwide. Smallville may not have been seen by quite as many,
> perhaps half that, but they've bought DVDs up the wazoo and
> they're passionate. Superman hasn't been done right in more
> than 25 years now, and when you add a more fractured core
> fan base than ever it's not ideal to understate it.
>
> Another planetary disaster may be overstating it because it'll be
> bound to do Superman Returns numbers one would think.That's all you think
> you can get from a Superman movie these days? I walked out of Superman
> Returns after twenty minutes, and I wasn't the first.
> Cast Justin Bieber as Jimmy Olsen maybe,
> and Stewart as Lois
> Lane since she'd probably work cheap or maybe even pay
> Warners to get her out from under Twilight. :-) Go for a 75%
> female audience with some male tag alongs and to heck with
> the fanboys. It's not like the Superman franchise has much
> left beyond this next shot at it anyway, so just rely on Bieber
> and Twilight fans to stack the house. Would that work? And
> if it did that'll be a good thing because... ?
Very funny.
Duggy
> Jude Law can act, usually.
Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
computer game film.
Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
===
= DUG.
===
Adam H. Kerman
Yeah. There have been a couple of films Law was clearly making no
effort to be part of. I did enjoy the remake of Alfie, which I didn't
expect to, but that had a lot to do with Sienna Miller's extended
nude scenes.
Duggy
Hmmm, maybe I should give that one a look after all.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> who was going to age steadily between movies, and everybody apparently
> okay with Superman having deserted them for years, thousands of
> innocent people dying in floods and plane crashes during that time.
Those things are Superman's fault.
I've got a cyclone baring down on me. I don't blame Superman for not
existing.
===
= DUG.
===
plausible prose man
> On Feb 2, 9:14 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Jude Law can act, usually.
>
> Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
> computer game film.
I have the idea "act" is one of those words you have an idiosyncratic
definition of, as with "general."
> Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
plausible prose man
> On Jan 31, 7:47 am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
> Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>
The problem is more he doesn't look like Superman, and his suit
doesn't help that any; there's only so good an actor you have to be to
play Superman.
Professor Bubba
<f6404730-3de7-4512...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
On the contrary, Superman is a hard sell. Everybody picks on the
latest actor to play him, comparing him to all the ones who have gone
before. All the '70s controversy among fans about Christopher Reeve
seems to have gone down the memory hole, but I still remember all the
unfavorable comparisons to George Reeves as well as the objections to
the liberties the film took with then-current comics continuity. It
was a long time ago, and people eventually changed their minds about
it. Much of what was in the film made it caused a flurry of retcons in
the comics, and many now seem to think things were always the way they
are now.
Making a stupid superhero movie is really easy. Writing and playing
Superman so you care about him is hard. The role requires a better
actor than you might think it would.
They've already said that they intend to augment Superman's physique
via CGI, the way they're reportedly done with Ryan Reynolds in Green
Lantern. That allowed them to broaden the search list for Superman
actors. You used to have to have muscles to play the part, but not
anymore.
As I've said, I'm not familiar with Henry Cavill. I see there was
credible talk about Jon Hamm and Matt Bomer for the role and, as much
as I like Mad Men and White Collar, I think they would have been all
wrong for it.
Lois was miscast in Superman Returns, and Perry was played all wrong.
I hope they do better now. I did like the way they handled Jimmy.
Another thing I hope they do in this new one is to stop pretending that
newspapers are doing well. I'd like to see some sign that a transition
to online publication is under way at the Daily Planet.
plausible prose man
> In article
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:04 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 7:47 am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
> > > Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>
> > > <cough> Can't act <cough>
>
> > The problem is more he doesn't look like Superman, and his suit
> > doesn't help that any; there's only so good an actor you have to be to
> > play Superman.
>
> On the contrary, Superman is a hard sell.
I have the idea the general public would respond well to a Superman
movie that was basically a fleshed-out Paramount cartoon. Someone (who
is not Luthor, or if he is, he's pimp-collar Luthor or Donald Trump/
Bill Gates Luthor, and not W. C. Fields Luthor. ) does something bad,
Perry says "Kent...Lane...come into my office. What do you make of
this mad scientist guy? " Lois gets captured, Clark ducks into a broom
closet...you know how this goes.. Really...the actor playing Superman
needs to be able to say three things; "Gosh Miss Lane..."; "This looks
like a job...FOR SUPERMAN!" and "It sure was Lois (or Jimmy...he can
deliver this line to either of them)...thanks to SUPERMAN ::wink::"
Really, don't overthink it.
> Everybody picks on the
> latest actor to play him,
A chorus of angry voices on the internet is probably no guide to
anyting.
>comparing him to all the ones who have gone
> before. All the '70s controversy among fans about Christopher Reeve
> seems to have gone down the memory hole, but I still remember all the
> unfavorable comparisons to George Reeves as well as the objections to
> the liberties the film took with then-current comics continuity.
Mostly, I remember a lot of articles about how much an Action comics
#1 would be worth, and a treasury edition book about how cool the
movie was going to be with bios about the various actors and articles
about the production.
>It
> was a long time ago, and people eventually changed their minds about
> it.
And more importantly, the movie resonated well with the public, even
with a script that was pretty weak in terms of pacing and conflict.
> Much of what was in the film made it caused a flurry of retcons in
> the comics,
Eh...not really. Not for another thirty years,. anyway. I did see
Otis on The Superfriends once or twice, but Luthor was a science
criminal, not a real estate hustler, and Krypton still looked like a
promo for the world's fair and people wore nehru collars and
headbands,
>and many now seem to think things were always the way they
> are now.
You have almost no idea what you're talking about, do you know that?
> Making a stupid superhero movie is really easy. Writing and playing
> Superman so you care about him is hard.
There are going to be a lot of temptations to go in the wrong
direction, but there's a lot of source material to draw inspiration
from.
> The role requires a better
> actor than you might think it would.
It requires an actor with a certain physical presence. The actor
doesn't have to be more talented in the way Jude Law or Anthory
Hopkins or Gary Oldman are than, say, Mark Hamill.
> They've already said that they intend to augment Superman's physique
> via CGI,
In fact, actually they've said they would rather not do that.
>the way they're reportedly done with Ryan Reynolds in Green
> Lantern. That allowed them to broaden the search list for Superman
> actors. You used to have to have muscles to play the part, but not
> anymore.
Henry Cavill is already pretty muscular:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/photo-henry-cavill-as-dirty-shirtless-warrior-god-theseus.html
>
> As I've said, I'm not familiar with Henry Cavill. I see there was
> credible talk about Jon Hamm
Pretty good face, a little too old; not convincing as someone who's
going to run and jump and throw things.
> and Matt Bomer
Would actually have been a better choice:
http://tv.rightcelebrity.com/?p=3292
> for the role and, as much
> as I like Mad Men and White Collar, I think they would have been all
> wrong for it.
Your ideas seem cluelessly incoherent.
>
> Lois was miscast in Superman Returns,
Yes.
> and Perry was played all wrong.
I barely remember him,
> I hope they do better now. I did like the way they handled Jimmy.
>
> Another thing I hope they do in this new one is to stop pretending that
> newspapers are doing well.
Please dont focus so much on irrelevant things.
> I'd like to see some sign that a transition
> to online publication is under way at the Daily Planet.
Perhaps they could make Clark a TV reporter, or a blogger.
Professor Bubba
<f6afd118-8969-45ab...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:37�am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f6404730-3de7-4512-b4b3-4b191dbf5...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 8:04 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 31, 7:47 am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
> > > > Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
> >
> > > > <cough> Can't act <cough>
> >
> > > �The problem is more he doesn't look like Superman, and his suit
> > > doesn't help that any; there's only so good an actor you have to be to
> > > play Superman.
> >
> > On the contrary, Superman is a hard sell. �
>
> I have the idea
Not really. Rest snipped.
Harold Groot
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 9:37=A0am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> =A0I'd like to see some sign that a transition
>> to online publication is under way at the Daily Planet.
>Perhaps they could make Clark a TV reporter, or a blogger.
Hmmm... someone refresh my memory. In the pre-Crisis Superman comics,
when was Clark Kent shifted from a newspaper reporter to being the
anchor of the TV News? I'm thinking early- to mid-1970s.
Back when Superman started, newspapers were one of the few places
(outside of actual law enforcement offices) which would receive word
of breaking news very quickly. Also, a newspaper reporter (in the
comics) had a great deal of freedom to go where he thought he was
needed - and as long as the stories were filed on time, get away with
it. When Morgan Edge made Clark a News Anchor, suddenly he was a lot
more restricted in his movements (especially around 6 PM) and his face
was known by a lot more people. He might even have to read the news
copy while a photo of Superman was pasted up electronically right
behind him (thank god he had those magic eyeglasses that always fooled
everybody, and those super-duper white shirts that could hide a
blue/red/yellow supersuit....)
In today's electronic world, anybody could be right on top of breaking
news. Bloggers would have even more freedom that newspaper reporters
(though they might not enjoy some of the leeway the police usually
extend to the traditional press). But then you'd have to invent some
way for Clark to meet other people regularly (as he used to meet Lois
and Jimmy and Perry).
Professor Bubba
<que...@infionline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:23:47 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man
> <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 2, 9:37=A0am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >> =A0I'd like to see some sign that a transition
> >> to online publication is under way at the Daily Planet.
>
> >Perhaps they could make Clark a TV reporter, or a blogger.
>
>
> Hmmm... someone refresh my memory. In the pre-Crisis Superman comics,
> when was Clark Kent shifted from a newspaper reporter to being the
> anchor of the TV News? I'm thinking early- to mid-1970s.
Yes. When Julie Schwartz took over as editor from Mort Weisinger in
1970, one of the first changes he made was to turn Clark into a TV
reporter. Julie went on TV to say that kids no longer knew what
newspapers were, which is why he'd done it. He was dismissive of
newspapers, and this was more than forty years ago. I wonder what he'd
think now?
Despite my new pal's own display of dismissiveness, I don't think you
can make a movie set in modern times and pretend that a major daily
newspaper is in good health, even if all it prints is stories about
Superman. Even the comics have shown that the Planet has been in and
out of trouble lately, and that it's been making moves toward entering
new media.
> Back when Superman started, newspapers were one of the few places
> (outside of actual law enforcement offices) which would receive word
> of breaking news very quickly. Also, a newspaper reporter (in the
> comics) had a great deal of freedom to go where he thought he was
> needed - and as long as the stories were filed on time, get away with
> it. When Morgan Edge made Clark a News Anchor, suddenly he was a lot
> more restricted in his movements (especially around 6 PM) and his face
> was known by a lot more people. He might even have to read the news
> copy while a photo of Superman was pasted up electronically right
> behind him (thank god he had those magic eyeglasses that always fooled
> everybody, and those super-duper white shirts that could hide a
> blue/red/yellow supersuit....)
>
> In today's electronic world, anybody could be right on top of breaking
> news. Bloggers would have even more freedom that newspaper reporters
> (though they might not enjoy some of the leeway the police usually
> extend to the traditional press). But then you'd have to invent some
> way for Clark to meet other people regularly (as he used to meet Lois
> and Jimmy and Perry).
I think this is all well said.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> They'll have to sell me on SuperBrit, apparently Simon Cowell was not
> available? Kate Middleton as Lois Lane may be next if this Anglophile
> trend gets out of control.
Well, we've already got a Welsh/South African Batman...
--
Dave
It's all about the triumph of intellect and romance
over brute force and cynicism.
Duggy
> On Feb 1, 10:43 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 9:14 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > > Jude Law can act, usually.
> > Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
> > computer game film.
> I have the idea "act" is one of those words you have an idiosyncratic
> definition of, as with "general."
Still sore that I proved you wrong on that one.
> > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
However, she coasts through the films barely showing any skill. Sure,
she isn't given much, but she doesn't do much with what she is given.
But she's one of many.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
<dd758811-bd57-49aa...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:47�pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 10:43�pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 9:14�am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Jude Law can act, usually.
> > > Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
> > > computer game film.
> > �I have the idea "act" is one of those words you have an idiosyncratic
> > definition of, as with "general."
>
> Still sore that I proved you wrong on that one.
>
> > > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> > �It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
>
> That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
Disagree. She's awful all the way through. Ever see any of the footage
where she tried an accent for X-Men? She's even worse, and they had to
dub her entire part in both movies.
plausible prose man
> In article
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 9:37 am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <f6404730-3de7-4512-b4b3-4b191dbf5...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 30, 8:04 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 31, 7:47 am, "He is the Resurrection and the Light: The
> > > > > Rapacious Mr. Hole" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There was nothing wrong with Brandon Routh.
>
> > > > > <cough> Can't act <cough>
>
> > > > The problem is more he doesn't look like Superman, and his suit
> > > > doesn't help that any; there's only so good an actor you have to be to
> > > > play Superman.
>
> > > On the contrary, Superman is a hard sell.
>
> > I have the idea
>
> Not really.
I admit, you have more ideas here than I do, but fewer of mine are
disconnected from reality or otherwise ignorant or ridiculous.
plausible prose man
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:23:47 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man
>
> >On Feb 2, 9:37=A0am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >> =A0I'd like to see some sign that a transition
> >> to online publication is under way at the Daily Planet.
> >Perhaps they could make Clark a TV reporter, or a blogger.
>
> Hmmm... someone refresh my memory. In the pre-Crisis Superman comics,
> when was Clark Kent shifted from a newspaper reporter to being the
> anchor of the TV News? I'm thinking early- to mid-1970s.
>
> Back when Superman started, newspapers were one of the few places
> (outside of actual law enforcement offices) which would receive word
> of breaking news very quickly. Also, a newspaper reporter (in the
> comics) had a great deal of freedom to go where he thought he was
> needed - and as long as the stories were filed on time, get away with
> it.
Anyway, that was one of the justifications for why Clark chose to be
a reporter.
> When Morgan Edge made Clark a News Anchor, suddenly he was a lot
> more restricted in his movements (especially around 6 PM) and his face
> was known by a lot more people. He might even have to read the news
> copy while a photo of Superman was pasted up electronically right
> behind him (thank god he had those magic eyeglasses that always fooled
> everybody,
They're not so magic as all that. I might have a friend who looks
like, say, Angelina Jolie, but its unlikely I would start thinking she
secretly was Angelina Jolie, especially if she only looked like the
famous actress in the way Christopher Reeve's Clark looks like his
Superman, or say Nick Cage made up as Charlie Kaufman and his twin
looks like Nick Cage. Indeed, if the Kaufman bros. were people I knew,
I doubt I would ever say "you guys look like Nick Cage, did you know
that?"
> and those super-duper white shirts that could hide a
> blue/red/yellow supersuit....)
Where did the cape go, did he tuck it into his pants, or what?
> In today's electronic world, anybody could be right on top of breaking
> news. Bloggers would have even more freedom that newspaper reporters
> (though they might not enjoy some of the leeway the police usually
> extend to the traditional press).
And some reporters, or at least columnists, are bloggers.
> But then you'd have to invent some
> way for Clark to meet other people regularly (as he used to meet Lois
> and Jimmy and Perry).
They all post to their blogs from the same coffeehouse, since the wifi
there is really good, or perhaps Jimmy and Lois are Barristas and
Perry is the manager. And that's kind of an interesting idea for
Ultimate Superman, maybe, but I think in a movie you want to go with
the most traditional form, and for Clark Kent that means reporter, and
not just reporter, but a reporter from a Howard Hawks movie where
people start their sentences with "Say" and end them with "see."
plausible prose man
> Despite my new pal's own display of dismissiveness, I don't think you
> can make a movie set in modern times and pretend that a major daily
> newspaper is in good health,
I doubt very much the audience would even notice or care. The health
of the paper just isn't an issue. Indeed, if the narrative focuses on
the financial condition of the paper, at least more than a line or two
of dialouge, well, you've failed. This is a superman movie, it's not a
movie about the challenges faced by print journalism in the digital
era; it's a movie about a guy in a blue costume with a red cape flying
and punching villains.
> even if all it prints is stories about
> Superman. Even the comics have shown that the Planet has been in and
> out of trouble lately, and that it's been making moves toward entering
> new media.
A comic has a lot more room to introduce complicated subplots than a
movie.
plausible prose man
> On Feb 2, 10:47 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:43 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 9:14 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > > > Jude Law can act, usually.
> > > Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
> > > computer game film.
> > I have the idea "act" is one of those words you have an idiosyncratic
> > definition of, as with "general."
>
> Still sore that I proved you wrong on that one.
Your proof involved denying Napoleon was a general, so it was a bit
like those proofs that 2=1 if you can divide by zero.
> > > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> > It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
>
> That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
Actually, X-men was all around pretty successful.
> However, she coasts through the films barely showing any skill.
Sam Jackson really seemed lost in the Star Wars movies, too. I think
it's a combination of George Lucas's jaw-breaking scripts and having
to read them against a green screen.
> Sure,
> she isn't given much, but she doesn't do much with what she is given.
She does what the role as laid out in the script requires.
> But she's one of many.
Mainly I'm upset with George Clooney. But his performance there
wasn't really bad, exactly; it was just more contemptuous of the role
and therefore of the audience, at least the portion of the audience
that had shown up expecting him to play the part straight-facedly.
plausible prose man
> In article
> <dd758811-bd57-49aa-83e4-1636c3204...@17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 10:47 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 10:43 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 9:14 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Jude Law can act, usually.
> > > > Can act usually usually means won't act in a SF/Superhero/comic book/
> > > > computer game film.
> > > I have the idea "act" is one of those words you have an idiosyncratic
> > > definition of, as with "general."
>
> > Still sore that I proved you wrong on that one.
>
> > > > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> > > It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
>
> > That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> > blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
Supposedly this was meant to be delivered in a light-hearted, off
hand way, but...you know, it's hard to imagine it working that way,
either.
> Disagree. She's awful all the way through.
Halle Berry's a sufficiently well-respected actress that I think
mainly you're complaining she doesn't live up to some personal,
idiosyncractic idea you have about Storm and who she is and why she
does what she does likely formed from a small portion of a single
panel on a page in a comic you read once. You know, and fine...I had a
friend, once, who was a little bummed the first Batman movie didn't
contain enough elements from the comics, like Aunt Harriet, and that a
Jetson's movie would hinge on the casting of Judy Jetson...
Professor Bubba
<10556a06-d603-4424...@d16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
Sure. That ignorance is why I think they should try to make as good a
movie as they can possibly make, while you're snidely contemptuous of
the source material. That's why you think another boring slugfest
flick is good enough because, after all, it's just a movie about some
guy in a cape, and they don't even really need an actor to play him.
We've all got it. Be happy: Things will probably go your way, because
they usually wind up making crap. You'll love it.
Anim8rFSK
<71d74eec-7cd8-409f...@d16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
You'd be completely wrong. I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
person, and a lousy actress. Yes, I think Storm could have been way
better cast - Angela Bassett anybody? - but I have no strong feelings
about Storm one way or the other.
M.O.R
>
> - Show quoted text -
For all the hype, and the Oscar, she has not shown a great degree of
acting ability. I mean Catwoman, Losing Isaiah, Swordfish, Perfect
Stranger and other films have shown that she does not have a great
deal of acting aility, if any. She also has an incredible knack to
pick awful films, her latest being Frankie and Alice. She went from a
top tier actress, all the way down to a poor man's Angela Bassett,
albeit without the natural acting ability.
The problem with the character of Storm in the movies, is that she is
meant to be the second in command, after Scott, but Scott was not much
of a leader in the film, and so the team was leaderless. On the other
hand, when Storm did have to take on the leadership duties in the
third film, she obviously left it all up to Wolverine. Not strong
qualities, at all.
In the second film, she seemed more like a cheer leader, cheering for
NightCrawler. "You can do it Kurt!!!" Especially in that finale in the
second film. But Singer never read X-men, or any comic books, so how
could we expect better. Still, X-men's three films are incredibly
superior to Superman Returns. Even the Third one has better casting
elements than Superman Returns.
Tim Turnip
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 9:27�pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>>�When Morgan Edge made Clark a News Anchor, suddenly he was a lot
>> more restricted in his movements (especially around 6 PM) and his face
>> was known by a lot more people. �He might even have to read the news
>> copy while a photo of Superman was pasted up electronically right
>> behind him (thank god he had those magic eyeglasses that always fooled
>> everybody,
>
>They're not so magic as all that. I might have a friend who looks
>like, say, Angelina Jolie, but its unlikely I would start thinking she
>secretly was Angelina Jolie, especially if she only looked like the
>famous actress...
But let's say your friend *is* secretly Angelina Jolie and is trying
to keep that a secret from you. You don't think you would eventually
start to suspect, if all she did was wear glasses?
Duggy
> > > It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
> > That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> > blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
> Disagree. She's awful all the way through.
That's what I said, but that line wasn't completely her fault.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Your proof involved denying Napoleon was a general, so it was a bit
> like those proofs that 2=1 if you can divide by zero.
No, I proved that Moriarty was The Emperor of Crime, not a mere
general of crime.
> > > > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> > > It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
> > That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> > blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
> Actually, X-men was all around pretty successful.
But that line wasn't.
> > However, she coasts through the films barely showing any skill.
> Sam Jackson really seemed lost in the Star Wars movies, too. I think
> it's a combination of George Lucas's jaw-breaking scripts and having
> to read them against a green screen.
There were a lot of bad acting from good actors in the prequels.
George hadn't directed for a long time... skills fade with lack of
use.
You're right, though, the script and green screen wouldn't have
helped.
> > But she's one of many.
>
> Mainly I'm upset with George Clooney. But his performance there
> wasn't really bad, exactly; it was just more contemptuous of the role
> and therefore of the audience, at least the portion of the audience
> that had shown up expecting him to play the part straight-facedly.
There are a number of actors who do a lot of SF and have a lot of
success because of SF who in mainstream interviews dis-SF.
===
= DUG.
===
plausible prose man
I bet I'm not, actually.
> I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
> person,
Huh, in what way, exactly?
>and a lousy actress.
Well, she isn't.
> Yes, I think Storm could have been way
> better cast - Angela Bassett anybody?
I'm not sure why that's an improvement.
> - but I have no strong feelings
> about Storm one way or the other.
>
> --
> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"- Hide quoted text -
plausible prose man
The Golden Globe, the Emmy, the BAFTA award...
> she has not shown a great degree of
> acting ability.
Sure, apart from the roles for which she's collected extensive awards
or nominations.
> I mean Catwoman, Losing Isaiah, Swordfish, Perfect
> Stranger and other films have shown that she does not have a great
> deal of acting aility, if any.
> She also has an incredible knack to
> pick awful films, her latest being Frankie and Alice. She went from a
> top tier actress, all the way down to a poor man's Angela Bassett,
> albeit without the natural acting ability.
That's just laughably ignorant, sorry.
>
> The problem with the character of Storm in the movies, is that she is
> meant to be the second in command,
Ah, yeah...here we go.
> after Scott, but Scott was not much
> of a leader in the film, and so the team was leaderless.
Characters may vary between incarnations.
> On the other
> hand, when Storm did have to take on the leadership duties in the
> third film, she obviously left it all up to Wolverine. Not strong
> qualities, at all.
I like Ebert and Roeper's review of X-men, where they wonder why
Storm, who is pretty clearly the most dangerous one, what with her
ability to control the weather and throw hurricanes and thunderstorms
around, isn't the focus, while Wolverine, who is basically a guy with
a knife in each hand, is such a prominent character.
> In the second film, she seemed more like a cheer leader, cheering for
> NightCrawler. "You can do it Kurt!!!" Especially in that finale in the
> second film. But Singer never read X-men, or any comic books, so how
> could we expect better. Still, X-men's three films are incredibly
> superior to Superman Returns.
You got that right.
> Even the Third one has better casting
> elements than Superman Returns.-
plausible prose man
> On Feb 6, 3:30 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Your proof involved denying Napoleon was a general, so it was a bit
> > like those proofs that 2=1 if you can divide by zero.
>
> No, I proved that Moriarty was The Emperor of Crime,
...if you can divide by zero.
> not a mere
> general of crime.
I liked how you could never make up your mind whether he issued
commands to anyone or not.
> > > > > Some great actors have phoned in their lines in these sort of films.
> > > > It's really hard to get your mouth around something like "do you know
> > > > what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?"
> > > That was a bad moment for Halle, and you're right, she's unreasonably
> > > blamed for a bad line or bad execution by the director.
> > Actually, X-men was all around pretty successful.
>
> But that line wasn't.
>
> > > However, she coasts through the films barely showing any skill.
> > Sam Jackson really seemed lost in the Star Wars movies, too. I think
> > it's a combination of George Lucas's jaw-breaking scripts and having
> > to read them against a green screen.
>
> There were a lot of bad acting from good actors in the prequels.
> George hadn't directed for a long time... skills fade with lack of
> use.
>
> You're right, though, the script and green screen wouldn't have
> helped.
>
> > > But she's one of many.
>
> > Mainly I'm upset with George Clooney. But his performance there
> > wasn't really bad, exactly; it was just more contemptuous of the role
> > and therefore of the audience, at least the portion of the audience
> > that had shown up expecting him to play the part straight-facedly.
>
> There are a number of actors who do a lot of SF and have a lot of
> success because of SF who in mainstream interviews dis-SF.
In interviews, Berry seemed to think Storm was beneath her, and
perhaps it was.
Ken Wesson
Three words: "Supernova sex scene".
Six more" "Didn't appear in Die Another Day".
Jerry Brown
Shouldn't matter if it doesn't show in the performance.
Michael Caine cheerfully admits that he did The Swarm and the Poseidon
sequel to pay for his house and pool, and, more recently, the good
golfing near the filming location was major among Samuel L Jackson's
reasons for doing Deep Blue Sea.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Anim8rFSK
<c7d9fd05-63f2-4e52...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
Then you're wrong again.
>
> > I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
> > person,
>
> Huh, in what way, exactly?
Come on. She makes a habit of driving drunk, and has a strategy for
getting out of the accidents she causes. That's a crummy human being.
>
> >and a lousy actress.
>
> Well, she isn't.
Except she is. If she wasn't beautiful she'd never get work on her
acting skills.
>
> > Yes, I think Storm could have been way
> > better cast - Angela Bassett anybody?
>
> I'm not sure why that's an improvement.
For one thing, it wouldn't have been Halle Berry.
Anim8rFSK
<bf878f9b-89dc-4f97...@u17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
Nope. She's collected awards, she hasn't shown acting ability. These
are different things, and Sean got it exactly right.
>
> > �I mean Catwoman, Losing Isaiah, Swordfish, Perfect
> > Stranger and other films have shown that she does not have a great
> > deal of acting aility, if any.
>
>
> >�She also has an incredible knack to
> > pick awful films, her latest being Frankie and Alice. �She went from a
> > top tier actress, all the way down to a poor man's Angela Bassett,
> > albeit without the natural acting ability.
>
> That's just laughably ignorant, sorry.
Which? The part where he's right?
>
> >
> > The problem with the character of Storm in the movies, is that she is
> > meant to be the second in command,
>
> Ah, yeah...here we go.
>
> > after Scott, but Scott was not much
> > of a leader in the film, and so the team was leaderless.
>
> Characters may vary between incarnations.
>
> > �On the other
> > hand, when Storm did have to take on the leadership duties in the
> > third film, she obviously left it all up to Wolverine. �Not strong
> > qualities, at all.
>
> I like Ebert and Roeper's review of X-men, where they wonder why
> Storm, who is pretty clearly the most dangerous one, what with her
> ability to control the weather and throw hurricanes and thunderstorms
> around, isn't the focus, while Wolverine, who is basically a guy with
> a knife in each hand, is such a prominent character.
Standard problem with characters that are too powerful; you have to find
a way to keep them off screen until you really need them, or the story
is over. Call it AIRWOLF Syndrome.
>
>
> > In the second film, she seemed more like a cheer leader, cheering for
> > NightCrawler. "You can do it Kurt!!!" Especially in that finale in the
> > second film. �But Singer never read X-men, or any comic books, so how
> > could we expect better. �Still, X-men's three films are incredibly
> > superior to Superman Returns.
Not only did Singer not read, he forbade the actors to read the source
material, because he didn't want anybody getting it right. Since he
didn't give them any background of his own, they found this quite
frustrating. Jackman says in interviews that he took it on himself to
score comics and pass them around.
>
> You got that right.
That's not a very high standard.
>
> > �Even the Third one has better casting
> > elements than Superman Returns.-
Yep.
Duggy
> I liked how you could never make up your mind whether he issued
> commands to anyone or not.
I'm sure you did. But I never said he didn't issue orders.
Once again, this is part of your imagination.
Like your claims about me hating Sinestro's death being retconned.
I didn't even know he died.
You make things up to win arguments and begin to believe them
yourself.
This is why you've never displayed proof of any of these claims of
yours.
> > There are a number of actors who do a lot of SF and have a lot of
> > success because of SF who in mainstream interviews dis-SF.
> In interviews, Berry seemed to think Storm was beneath her, and
> perhaps it was.
Then don't take the part.
===
= DUG.
===
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>You'd be completely wrong. I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
>person, and a lousy actress. Yes, I think Storm could have been way
>better cast - Angela Bassett anybody? - but I have no strong feelings
>about Storm one way or the other.
At this point in time, Bassett's too old for the role. Hell
at the time when X-Men had started, Bassett was again too old for the
role. McTaggert maybe... not that it would stop Hollywood for such a
blatant PC Mess that would cause. After all, look who continues to be
Nick Fury.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
M.O.R
The Golden Raspberry Award for worst actress for Catwoman. That was
the most recent, and I cannot say she improved alot since.
>
> > she has not shown a great degree of
> > acting ability.
>
> Sure, apart from the roles for which she's collected extensive awards
> or nominations.
>
> > I mean Catwoman, Losing Isaiah, Swordfish, Perfect
> > Stranger and other films have shown that she does not have a great
> > deal of acting aility, if any.
> > She also has an incredible knack to
> > pick awful films, her latest being Frankie and Alice. She went from a
> > top tier actress, all the way down to a poor man's Angela Bassett,
> > albeit without the natural acting ability.
>
> That's just laughably ignorant, sorry.
She ain't that good. Sorry.
>
>
> > The problem with the character of Storm in the movies, is that she is
> > meant to be the second in command,
>
> Ah, yeah...here we go.
>
> > after Scott, but Scott was not much
> > of a leader in the film, and so the team was leaderless.
>
> Characters may vary between incarnations.
>
> > On the other
> > hand, when Storm did have to take on the leadership duties in the
> > third film, she obviously left it all up to Wolverine. Not strong
> > qualities, at all.
>
> I like Ebert and Roeper's review of X-men, where they wonder why
> Storm, who is pretty clearly the most dangerous one, what with her
> ability to control the weather and throw hurricanes and thunderstorms
> around, isn't the focus, while Wolverine, who is basically a guy with
> a knife in each hand, is such a prominent character.
>
True, but then again, he doesn't freak out when locked in enclosed
spaces. When a heroine is easily defeated by locking her in a locker,
it does not make her that dangerous. I personally found Magneto, who
has incredible powers over metal, to be rather underpowered in the
films. I felt that Singer could have thrown a clever curveball by
casting an old man, who one would characteristically see as weak (it's
kinda in our nature) and then have him display these massive powers
over metal (Think the bridge scene in X3. Yes I know Ratner cannot
direct for snot, but there are at least some minor positives to be
drawn from the film, yet we had to wait 3 films to see the magnitude
of his abilities). Unfortunately, we never got that in the beginning,
and it would have made him so much more dangerous and a great
villain. Somewhere in the region of Darth Vader. A really good
battle, although one that would stretch the budget, would be a face
off between Magneto and Storm. For all the cylones she could muster,
Magneto would be able to manipulate the debris to attack her, while
maintaining a defensive shield around himself.
Yet by highlighting Wolverine, and neglecting other areas, we kind of
got a half thought out film. Fanboys love to see Wolverine, yet one
has to ask why? I mean, he is hardly the most interesting character,
gets his butt whooped time and time again and has a one dimensional
personality.
M.O.R
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:49:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
Sadly Samuel L JAckson, like Jude Law a few years ago, or Ben Stiller,
or Owen Wilson, or Will Ferrell ec, has saturated everything. And not
in a good way.
He's in way too many movies lately, and it has kinda got boring. I
mean, he makes 4-6 appearances in movies every year, and that does not
include other media like TV shows and video games. If he cut back on
the numerous appearances he makes in movies, he might be taken
credibly as an actor again.
I don't mind him playing Nick Fury. I mean, David Hasslehoff made a
far bigger haims of the role when he played it. I just wish they had
gone further afield. I mean, like I said, SLJ is in way too much
lately. Kinda wonder if Chris Cooper or someone else would have
played the role better.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:49:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You'd be completely wrong. I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
> >person, and a lousy actress. Yes, I think Storm could have been way
> >better cast - Angela Bassett anybody? - but I have no strong feelings
> >about Storm one way or the other.
>
> At this point in time, Bassett's too old for the role. Hell
> at the time when X-Men had started, Bassett was again too old for the
> role. McTaggert maybe... not that it would stop Hollywood for such a
> blatant PC Mess that would cause. After all, look who continues to be
> Nick Fury.
Well, Storm was supposed to be really really old, before they retconned
her origin. :)
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
Since when? Back in the 80s when I was actually collecting
the X-Men comics, she was 28 (which was considered the oldest among
the teens and early 20-somethings).
If you're referring to the 90s, then that's just another
retcon on top of the reboots that happened at the time.
M.O.R
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:13:44 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <pt7uk6le000kujh5d1nlq4l1040lv5l...@4ax.com>,
> > Merrick Baldelli <mbalde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:49:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >You'd be completely wrong. I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
> >> >person, and a lousy actress. Yes, I think Storm could have been way
> >> >better cast - Angela Bassett anybody? - but I have no strong feelings
> >> >about Storm one way or the other.
>
> >> At this point in time, Bassett's too old for the role. Hell
> >> at the time when X-Men had started, Bassett was again too old for the
> >> role. McTaggert maybe... not that it would stop Hollywood for such a
> >> blatant PC Mess that would cause. After all, look who continues to be
> >> Nick Fury.
>
> >Well, Storm was supposed to be really really old, before they retconned
> >her origin. :)
>
> Since when? Back in the 80s when I was actually collecting
> the X-Men comics, she was 28 (which was considered the oldest among
> the teens and early 20-somethings).
>
> If you're referring to the 90s, then that's just another
> retcon on top of the reboots that happened at the time.
>
> --
> -=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> _( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
> (((\ \> /_1 `
> (\\\\ \_/ /
> -=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> \ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember people pitching Sanaa Lathan for the role of Storm at a
time when Halle Berry said she may not come back (It was a ploy to get
more screen time and a bigger wage. Common tactic among actors) and
people were posting their opinion on who should be cast instead.
She's nearly 40, but there was a time she would have made an
interesting Storm.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:13:44 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pt7uk6le000kujh5d...@4ax.com>,
> > Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:49:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You'd be completely wrong. I think Berry is a beautiful face, an ugly
> >> >person, and a lousy actress. Yes, I think Storm could have been way
> >> >better cast - Angela Bassett anybody? - but I have no strong feelings
> >> >about Storm one way or the other.
> >>
> >> At this point in time, Bassett's too old for the role. Hell
> >> at the time when X-Men had started, Bassett was again too old for the
> >> role. McTaggert maybe... not that it would stop Hollywood for such a
> >> blatant PC Mess that would cause. After all, look who continues to be
> >> Nick Fury.
> >
> >Well, Storm was supposed to be really really old, before they retconned
> >her origin. :)
>
> Since when? Back in the 80s when I was actually collecting
> the X-Men comics, she was 28 (which was considered the oldest among
> the teens and early 20-somethings).
>
> If you're referring to the 90s, then that's just another
> retcon on top of the reboots that happened at the time.
Didn't she start out as the endlessly old African princess, and the
Modesty Blaise grew up on the streets being a thief bit was the retcon?
I didn't actually read X-Men then, just articles 'about' likely in The
Comics Journal.
Duggy
> Didn't she start out as the endlessly old African princess, and the
> Modesty Blaise grew up on the streets being a thief bit was the retcon?
> I didn't actually read X-Men then, just articles 'about' likely in The
> Comics Journal.
I knew she was worshipped as a goddess because of her powers, but that
can happen to a thief/street kid. Are you sure you read endlessly old
African princess?
===
= DUG.
===
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>> >Well, Storm was supposed to be really really old, before they retconned
>> >her origin. :)
>>
>> Since when? Back in the 80s when I was actually collecting
>> the X-Men comics, she was 28 (which was considered the oldest among
>> the teens and early 20-somethings).
>>
>> If you're referring to the 90s, then that's just another
>> retcon on top of the reboots that happened at the time.
>
>Didn't she start out as the endlessly old African princess, and the
>Modesty Blaise grew up on the streets being a thief bit was the retcon?
>I didn't actually read X-Men then, just articles 'about' likely in The
>Comics Journal.
That would be about right yes. The story of her being a thief
was introduced after they cloned her back from the dead (after the
Brood Wars) they wanted to give her a sort of Grace Jones with a
Mohawk look. So to get her into leather, they added the street rat
part of her upbringing.
Prior to that, the "endlessly old" was hinted at her being
like the Phantom and her powers were handed down from mother to
daughter for some obscure and isolated tribe. The writers naturally
couldn't come out and actually say it, else copyright wars would
happen in court. But the hinting was pretty heavy-handed enough for
comic book fans to pick up.