Henry Cavill Is The New Superman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News



Message


Empire Admin -> Henry Cavill Is The New Superman (30/1/2011 7:04:59 PM)

Post your comments on this article




JIm R -> RE: The Brits Are Taking Over! (30/1/2011 7:09:42 PM)

No Brandon [&o]




Ghidorah -> RE: The Brits Are Taking Over! (30/1/2011 7:18:33 PM)

 It is amusing the current actors playing the founders of JLA are not Americans. Two Brits and one Canadian. Not a single american in sight.




JIm R -> RE: The Brits Are Taking Over! (30/1/2011 7:26:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ghidorah

It is amusing the current actors playing the founders of JLA are not Americans. Two Brits and one Canadian. Not a single american in sight.


It is marvelous frankly.....




Spaldron -> RE: (30/1/2011 8:00:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theonering

Shit, without routh just shit. be giving this one a miss me thinks


So basically, despite the fact Chris Nolan is involved and hasnt even been filmed yet, you're giving it a miss because Brandon (Superman Returnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) Routh isnt there. No one actor is bigger than the franchise, otherwise there would have been no more films after Chris Reeve. Would you have settled for Tom Welling?




themightyhutch -> RE: RE: (30/1/2011 8:07:49 PM)

Who dat?




captainrentboy -> RE: RE: (30/1/2011 8:29:59 PM)

Can't say I've ever seen him in anything, so can't really judge his acting ability. But he does have a big ole square jaw and an ideal Superman-esque face, so he should look the part at least.
I didn't mind Routh, although it really was just a good Reeve impersonation. So it'll be interesting to see what this new guy does with it.
Didn't realise it wasn't out until Dec 2012 though, I thought it was a summer flick :( it's bloody ages away!




redpaw -> RE: (30/1/2011 9:24:14 PM)

As a HUGE fan of the Supes, I'm happy with this choice -- however, I don't know ANYTHING about this guy- I don't know what he's been in, I don't know what his acting's like, I don't know what his accent's like -- but I like the way he looks! ...He at least LOOKS the part... and somewhere, somehow, within my psyche, he seems to fit the romantic idea of what I think Superman should look like. So, on that level, thus far, I'm pleased. Once he starts acting and opening his mouth, that might be another matter...

...But, fingers crossed, he'll pull it off.

Let's just hope Snyder does a better job than Singer -- sorry, man but you fucked us -- you fucked us all.




redpaw -> RE: RE: (30/1/2011 9:28:54 PM)


quote:


Didn't realise it wasn't out until Dec 2012 though, I thought it was a summer flick :( it's bloody ages away!


This tells me they're going with a darker film...

...which, I'll be honest, worries me slightly...

P.S.: commiserations to Routh- he was a decent Superman.




azzman1984 -> RE: RE: (31/1/2011 12:27:59 AM)

Congrats to Henry for bagging the role of Superman, hopefully he will do a decent job.




lukeyboy -> RE: It's a frickin' superhero, is what it is....not a bird, dumbass. (31/1/2011 9:19:42 AM)

Well done Zach my ol' china! Loving The fact the JLA are not American,....can you hear that - it's the sound of a million American geeks simultaneously shitting themselves in anger!!

Just kidding - i love the yanks, but you have to admit this is pretty funnny!![;)]

Oh and yeah - Henry Cavill is a pretty solid choice acting wise! Looking forward to this one!




Wild about Wilder -> RE: It's a frickin' superhero, is what it is....not a bird, dumbass. (31/1/2011 11:34:07 AM)

But I thought everyone knew in the comics Supes is a WHINEY TWAT!




JRockwell -> Excellent choice (31/1/2011 4:42:39 PM)

They definitely needed a clean break. Romanticising Reeve by using Routh must have seemed like a good idea but every touch of the glasses broke the spell of the movie for me.

With a new actor and a new start the character can actually go places. My only concern is the boy is going to have to lift some major poundage to get Superman big - CGI Superman? Tiny Englishman head on Herculean body?




BatSpider -> RE: Zack Snyder will be to Superman what... (31/1/2011 7:05:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Concise_Statement

Brett Ratner was to X-Men, meaning a hack.

Superman Returns had problems like length, slowness and lack of humour and action, BUT at least Bryan Singer was able to make me care about the main character by having an emotional arc. I don't care about anyone in 300 or Watchmen. They're not films. They're fanboygasms - just a collection of all their favourite bits put together like some stupid, disjointed, inconsequential clip show. I'll concede this - he may be able to deliver a few mildly entertaining action set pieces like Ratner, but dramatically I expect nothing but a trivial, teen-oriented piece of junk I can play in the background at home, and not any kind of event for which is worth going to the cinema.


Pussy-boy.




Avanpallandt -> RE: Still don't get it... (31/1/2011 11:08:50 PM)

I disagree that Singer is a superior director. In my humble opinion, his style just isn't the right fit. He tries too hard to stick to the work of others rather than embracing a fresh look on things. Snyder on the other hand has at least proven that he can adapt comics (300) and has an eye for great set pieces. Superman Returns just tried too hard to be a sequel, whereas it should have just been something new.




Mr Grady -> RE: Poor Brandon (1/2/2011 1:36:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dapieman


Still at least we'll always have scott pilgrim.


Is that how you validate your opinion?  hilarious.

That's like saying i'm really disappionted this tent leaks, however at least we'll always have earwigs.




JIm R -> RE: Still don't get it... (1/2/2011 8:57:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Avanpallandt

I disagree that Singer is a superior director. In my humble opinion, his style just isn't the right fit. He tries too hard to stick to the work of others rather than embracing a fresh look on things. Snyder on the other hand has at least proven that he can adapt comics (300) and has an eye for great set pieces. Superman Returns just tried too hard to be a sequel, whereas it should have just been something new.


errr. that's because it was (to Superman II)




JRockwell -> RE: MUSCLES.....? (4/2/2011 6:23:43 PM)

Indeed.
Q: "So Mr Bale, how did you go from an emaciated skeleton to big Batman in record time?"
A: "Steroids! hahAHhAhaHAahaaa!" Can't remember who asked him this question but it was widely reported that he "said it and laughed sarcastically". I think he probably went the Mickey Rourke route myself.

Cavill CAN do it, he has the time but whether he will I think is open to debate. Small Kent to huge Superman would certainly be a more convincing desguise and would fit in with Nolan's more realistic approach to these other Universes. Just have to wait and see I guess.




redpaw -> RE: MUSCLES.....? (4/2/2011 7:05:00 PM)


quote:

Small Kent to huge Superman would certainly be a more convincing desguise and would fit in with Nolan's more realistic approach to these other Universes.



How the hell will THIS make it more realistic?

...I mean, the physicality of it? Utter nonsense.

And the very idea of a CGI'd suit sounds like the recipe for aesthetic disaster.




jobloffski -> RE: MUSCLES.....? (5/2/2011 8:47:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redpaw


quote:

Small Kent to huge Superman would certainly be a more convincing desguise and would fit in with Nolan's more realistic approach to these other Universes.



How the hell will THIS make it more realistic?

...I mean, the physicality of it? Utter nonsense.

And the very idea of a CGI'd suit sounds like the recipe for aesthetic disaster.



I take it most of the people who don't buy the glasses on=Clark /glasses off=Superman and nobody notices the similarity aren't members of the four eyed fraternity themselves? Cos once, very a slight change of haircut and switch to contacts while I was in school led to almost nobody recognising me when I rocked up with the new look. In fact, if it hadn't been for the way I moved when I walked, and the same old school bag, maybe nobody would have known it was me.

Turns out it was mainly about the eyes. Glasses reflect a good deal of the light, affects the way their colour looks and changes the shape of them and (also they define perception of the shape of the face). But people seeing my eyes 'naked' for the first time saw a different person. For a short time, anyway, cos severe 'red eye' reaction to the contacts put paid to my using them.

So it's realistic enough for me. Anyway, check out Superman two for just how different Reeves seems, in tone/physicality/presence one second to the next, when he realises Lois knows who he is and he drops the bumbling Clark-isms (which, incidentally, shows what a brilliant performance the often underrated Reeves brought to the table)

Also tickles me that some people will accept him being bulletproof, able to fly, able to blow out fires and see through anything (except lead), etc, but can't accept that other characters can't tell Clark is Superman simply because they don't know they are looking at the same person whereas. as the audience, we do, so the different clothes, voice, mannerisms, posture, hair, level of confidence, can't possibly be enough misdirection to fool us.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.222656E-02