Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Spence said:

Perhaps they should hire people that actually like superheroes to direct and write?

That's just crazy talk.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I actually liked Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, even though the film was pretty bad.  He looked and acted right for the character.  Cavill looks like he'd rather kill you than save you as Superman.

I always felt he was saddled(?) with playing Christopher Reeves playing Clark/Superman. Reeves was great as both Clark and Superman, but that movie was a direct sequel to the Reeves ones.

 

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I really liked the Lois & Clark show when it was on, even if it went cheap on the superhero stuff.

I really felt you that both mains really identified with the characters. I thought Teri made a great Lois and Dean had Clark and Superman down. And I loved the fact his parents were alive and featured at times. The story only really went off the rails when they were setup to be married in a cross with both the comics AND daily newspaper comics that got delayed due to the comics being printed getting behind, so the had to do the clone story.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You also have to cut physical film to add bits. It's just short for "edit," I think.

 

This is correct. "Cut" is just a synonym for "edit" (or "version"). There's the "working cut", the "first cut," the "final cut," the "studio cut," the "broadcast cut," the "director's cut," etc. It's just industry jargon for a particular edit (i.e., version) of a film or tv episode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Writer: Snyder
Director: Snyder

But supposedly Snyder is a comic book fan.

 

Being a fan, even being specifically a fan of superhero comics, doesn't mean that you understand why a story works and why another story doesn't. Being a fan just means that you like the final product, not that you'd be any good at replicating that final product.

 

Though I'd definitely give any fan consideration for hiring over anyone who isn't a fan.

 

Personally, I think for superhero movies that for any major cast member, they need to give whoever is trying out for the part a stack of 500 comic books dealing with that character and tell them they need to read the books before trying out. 

 

Have the actor on secret camera when they're presented with the books to see whether their reaction is "oh boy, 500 comic books!" or "What fresh hell am I getting myself into? I have zero interest in comic books, much less understanding my character."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Clark Kent (though he's still the best ever Superman, imho), but I can't fault Brandon Routh for delivering when asked to imitate it as closely as possible.

 

22 hours ago, Spence said:

That is the problem.  The source material Carol Danvers portrayal was that of a competent professional very confident highly trained warrior. 

Which was translated by Hollywood into an arrogant hard case.   She was mind controlled but the film never actually established her as a person that could be contrasted with her under mind control.  There really wasn't any difference between the character before and after mind control.  Just who she wanted to whack.

I've been reading comics with Carol Danvers in them since her team up with Spider-Man against the Super Skrull in the 1970s, and the only time I recall her not being an arrogant hard case was just after Rogue stole her powers and Prof. X had to rebuild her memories from the ground up. Her movie depiction wasn't warm, or soothing to male viewers' threatened egos, but it seemed pretty spot-on in terms of getting her essence from the comics right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, archer said:

 

Being a fan, even being specifically a fan of superhero comics, doesn't mean that you understand why a story works and why another story doesn't. Being a fan just means that you like the final product, not that you'd be any good at replicating that final product.

 

Though I'd definitely give any fan consideration for hiring over anyone who isn't a fan.

 

Personally, I think for superhero movies that for any major cast member, they need to give whoever is trying out for the part a stack of 500 comic books dealing with that character and tell them they need to read the books before trying out. 

 

Have the actor on secret camera when they're presented with the books to see whether their reaction is "oh boy, 500 comic books!" or "What fresh hell am I getting myself into? I have zero interest in comic books, much less understanding my character."

 

I think you idea is good, but your target subjects are a little off. For the most part, the actors do good jobs in their superhero roles and I can only think of one or two casting choices that didn't seem right to me.. I didn't care much for Edward Norton's Banner and Ryan Reynolds would have been a great Flash or Plastic Man but was a poor Hal Jordan. It's the writers, directors and producers that should have to read the comics. The actors are stuck putting lipstick on the pigs they're given(Affleck especially). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its the job of an actor to take on a new role that they may  know nothing about, figure out the hook and what makes them work, and make that happen on screen.  While I think they did give Downey a bunch of greatest hits Iron Man stories to read, my guess is he just took a thumbnail sketch "rich playboy inventor arrogant learns a lesson" and riffed on that.  Its what they do for a living, and the good ones do it well.

 

Writers and directors, though... their entire job is to bring a story to life that fits the concept and they need to know, and love the material to do it well.  While I liked Thor, it was pretty clear Brannagh wasn't super familiar with any of the source material and was more working from a "bible" or advice from Feige etc, rather than a real love of and comfort with the character and story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

While I liked Thor, it was pretty clear Brannagh wasn't super familiar with any of the source material and was more working from a "bible" or advice from Feige etc, rather than a real love of and comfort with the character and story.


From IMDB:
 

Quote

 

Sir Kenneth Branagh conceptualized this movie as a Norse and comic book twist on William Shakespeare's Henry V (1989), which was about a young King who underwent trials and tribulations: fighting a war, courting a girl from another land, trying to live up to the example set by his father (a beloved King), and basic character development.


 

Quote

 

Sir Kenneth Branagh has been a fan of "Thor" since childhood. When Marvel Studios selected him as the director, they sent him the complete collection of the Marvel Thor comics series as reference material for the character.


 


Vulture:
 

Quote

 

Kenneth Branagh, one of the great living Shakespeareans, is mixing things up this spring: He’s the director of the forthcoming blockbuster superhero flick Thor...


 

Quote

I was actually a Thor fan growing up. I liked the big strong man with fateful flaws. He had everything. He was a prince. He has privileges. He had money and power and he was built like a tree trunk, but he didn’t know what to do with all that power. It’s a superhero in reverse story, which I absolutely loved. You’ve got this extraordinary person or mythical status suddenly becoming an ordinary person having to adjust to being ordinary. I liked that twist around. I thought it was a very interesting take on a superhero.

Quote

I think Henry V was an interesting example because, as a young man he was reckless and he kept bad company. People thought he’d make a terrible leader. His father was angry at him but he turned out to be a terrific leader. But he had to earn that privilege, earn that place by losing a lot of friends, losing power, losing family and making sacrifices. They’re both stories of how you find yourself. A rite of passage. Both are a good identity story and very relatable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, archer said:

Though I'd definitely give any fan consideration for hiring over anyone who isn't a fan.

 

It's a shame Amazon Prime didn't see it that way when they were pitched The Boys. Of course, I'm sure they feel mighty proud of themselves given how successful the show has been in connecting with viewers who have as much contempt for superheroes as Garth Ennis does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I actually liked Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, even though the film was pretty bad.  He looked and acted right for the character.  Cavill looks like he'd rather kill you than save you as Superman.

 

Considering that they were deliberately trying to carry on from Christopher Reeve's interpretation of Superman, it was logical for them to cast an actor who physically resembled Reeve, and could mimic his interpretation of Clark Kent. But IMO Brandon Routh in Superman Returns never captured the dignity, the nobility of Reeve's Superman. Maybe he was just too young at the time. But his return to the character in the Arrowverse crossover last year let him show that more experience and maturity has allowed him to capture those elements of Superman. The fan response was so positive, there have been rumors of him starring in a Kingdom Come mini-series on HBO. Don't know what the status of that is currently, though.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Roger Moore's autobiography, he witnessed Christopher Reeve walking through the canteen at Pinewood Studios in full Superman costume, oblivious to the swooning female admirers he left in his wake. When he did the same thing dressed as Clark Kent, no one paid any attention.

 

For his portrayal of Clark Kent, Christopher Reeve based the performance on Cary Grant's character in Bringing Up Baby (1938).

 

Brandon Routh and Christopher Reeve were 26 years old when their first Superman films were released.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No one who didn't already know would ever recognize Reeve's Superman in his Clark Kent. He made them look, sound, and act very different.

 

Yeah that is the one thing that really stands out and is incredibly effective in the first Superman film he did.  You really could believe that even close people wouldn't recognize him.  His voice, his posture, his mannerisms, everything changed.  And I know from personal experience meeting people out of context like people from work out in a bar, or something, you can honestly not recognize someone you know.  Especially if they are wearing a distinctive costume in one of those settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mattingly said:

164992430_595767247403_54083909688841303

 

 

I would watch the hell out of that if they used the Mantis from the comic books rather than the MCU Mantis.

 

Maybe make it like the old Kung Fu show where she travels around on foot while righting the wrongs she comes across in the lives of the simple townsfolk.

 

They need a good "guest star of the week" program to round out their schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...