Jump to content
sethos

Faster than a Speeding Bullet

Recommended Posts

The costume still looks shit, though, and he looks far too young to be plausible as a several-years-later continuation of the Christopher Reeve version of the character, which is the concept they've (stupidly) based the film around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The costume still looks shit, though, and he looks far too young to be plausible as a several-years-later continuation of the Christopher Reeve version of the character, which is the concept they've (stupidly) based the film around.

 

This, in my book, is the most major drawback to the casting. I really have no idea how good/bad an actor this guy is but the look is just totally wrong for me. If there's anyone who should have the Wisdom of Age chiselled on to his brow it should be Superman. Fuck's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say to myself, "At least he's better than that Tom Welling bastard on Smallville." Which really is no consolation at all; but it makes me feel just a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just have to say to myself, "At least he's better than that Tom Welling bastard on Smallville."  Which really is no consolation at all; but it makes me feel just a little better.

 

 

But Welling's playing Superboy - he's meant to look young.

 

I'm not talking about the performance Routh is going to give - from the clips I've seen, I suspect he's not going to be bad at all - but the fact that he's totally miscast. He just doesn't look the part, and that's going to be a problem. The fact that he's following on from Christopher Reeve, arguably the best-cast actor ever to play a comic-book character, isn't helping.

 

I have no doubt at all that this'll be a better film than X-3, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it IS ten years later following the second Reeve movie? Because that REALLY doesn't make sense. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, i think he doesnt look so bad, but yeah, hes not perfect either, but thats more of an age- than actual appereance issue for me.

Why was Reeve's look more suiting as Superman btw? I mean he seemed thinner and not so "astonishing" as the Superman i know from some comics- A muscular, pretty doll-man, if you know what i mean. The characteristica of many mens appereance in most old-school comics back then, big, edgy face, thin lips, huge body, wise eyes etc.

I dont want to second guess him or anything, im just curious, because you know im not much of a Superman-fan so i cant fathom what you do.

But, i have to say, i like this guys voice very much at the very least-

And i am surprised of myself that i actually like this trailer pretty much-

I mean really, its nice!

What are the differences and similarities of this film and the 70s Superman?

N how fast should i get on my feet to rewatch that film if i like this trailer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get on your feet immediately and get the first two Superman movies. The scene at the very end of the first movie when Reeve does his last flyby before the credits roll should convince you of why he was so well-cast as Superman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher Reeve was certainly not 'thinner' than Routh. The guy was totally Superman in every way. Six foot three and built. Routh is physically unimpressive by Superman standards from what I can tell from the trailers. And I did think his voice remarkably similar to Reeve's when I saw him at some awards ceremony recently but it sounded a little nasal and twangy in the trailer. But really, there's not much to go on there. The main drawback is the look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you mean "Much to go on"?

Really, they are built the same?

I totally should see the first two again!

I honestly want to.

 

Yeah, i thought exactly the same that Rouths voice is somewhat similar, i like it.

 

Oh, and what i wanted to ask, what is so important on how he looks?

I mean i understand, he should look handsome, and also manly(impressive)/powerful (Wheter in soul, body or mind), but heck, look at Daniel Craig in the new Bond!

Now thats something not to like (Why didnt they go with Owen?).

And i see that in Routh, hes max. not that old, but the look on its own wouldnt be bad.

Who would you have chosen for this new SM film?

And which comic-illustration features the typical superman-look, to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you mean "Much to go on"?

Really, they are built the same?

I totally should see the first two again!

I honestly want to.

 

Yeah, i thought exactly the same that Rouths voice is somewhat similar, i like it.

 

No, what I was saying is that they are NOT built the same. Christopher Reeve was built like Superman. Brandon Routh looks rather puny in comparison. He doesnt have rugged facial features either. He looks rather delicate.

 

Like Mark said, Reeve was pretty much the perfect casting choice.

 

I meant that since there is not much in the way of Superman's speaking voice in the trailer, there isnt enough material for me to decide whether or not Routh's voice is good for the role. Judging from the way he spoke at the Golden Globes, he sounds a lot like Reeve. But in the trailer, he didnt sound so good. Let's see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.

Hm, i dont think he looks so puny.

Well yeah, he should be a bit more weathered.

 

Edit: I re-watched the trailer, and sometimes he really looks puny.

But oddly, sometimes he looks totally manly, i mean what idealised picture of men i have in mind (Like Big in Sex and the City)- that can vary from yours o course, i watch it as non-Superman fan.

But i wouldnt say he looks unimpressive in body, hes no stick i mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. That looks good. Much better than X3 is looking.

 

I think the 10 years later approach is smart, personally I didn't want to see another origin movie. The fact that the two leads have such youthful looks (like teenage youthful) only mildly perturbs me. If I can come to accept a tall Wolverine, a ridiculously young cyclops, and a ridiculously old Jean Grey, I can accept these two rugrats as Superman and Lois.

 

The kid though, I can do without. Haven't they learned anything from Jumptheshark.com?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that the two leads have such youthful looks (like teenage youthful)

 

 

Yeah, that's the other thing. Lois Lane doesnt look like Lois Lane either. She looks like a college intern trying to imitate her alliteratively named idol.

 

The thing is, I didnt really think the age or height of the X-Men is as intrinsic to their character as Superman's older/wiser demigod status. IMHO Wolverine's height is entirely immaterial. Jean Grey and Cyclops somehow GAIN from the age adjustments (the former is played as a wise mentor figure to the rest and the latter is played as a brash kid; both depictions work). But Superman cannot possibly gain in any way from looking like a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superman cannot possibly gain in any way from looking like a child.

Except for starring in the subsequent sequels for years to come....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Routh Superman action figures have hit the shops in Australia. Compared to photos of the actor, they're more bulky, more buffed, and have a wider jawline and stronger chin. In other words, more like Superman.

 

I realise that exaggerated sculpting is common in movie action figures. Nevertheless, I choose to read something into it. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jean Grey and Cyclops somehow GAIN from the age adjustments (the former is played as a wise mentor figure to the rest and the latter is played as a brash kid; both depictions work)

 

Not if you've read the comics, they don't. At all. Cyclops is the X-Men - he's probably the most important character in the classic-era books (as well as being one of the coolest - the scene in which he BEATS UP THE ENTIRE TEAM as a morale-boosting exercise in an issue just before the Dark Phoenix saga is one of my favourite sequences of pure bad-assery from any superhero comic - Cyclops was always cooler, and harder, than Wolverine, until the X-Men books started going way off-track in the mid-80s), and the way the films reduce his role is one of the major problems with them.

 

Wolverine's height may seem like a non-issue to you, but again, compared with the comic, there's a big difference. Making the character physically imposing (and, not to put too fine a point on it, a hunk) changes the audience's perception of him to a massive degree - the fact that they also toned down the animalistic side of his personality just adds to this. Jackman's Wolverine is cool, and I enjoy his performance in both the films, but he's a very different character from the Wolverine who originally appeared in the comics. Again, this is before Marvel started pushing him as their central character, put him in every book on the market, and totally changed his personality/appearance - Jackman's performance is far closer to the modern version of the character. But that later version of Wolverine is crap compared with the original one, so that doesn't really help.

 

I like the X-Men films well enough (they're both seriously flawed, but still fun) as entities in and of themselves, and they capture some elements of the X-Men mythos surprisingly well. But the actual interpersonal dynamic between the characters is way, way off-base, and as a fan of the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne Uncanny X-Men, that's a problem for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Routh is something like 2 meters tall. read that somewhere. anyway, I think the whole thing about him being so young upon his return is a plot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jean Grey and Cyclops somehow GAIN from the age adjustments (the former is played as a wise mentor figure to the rest and the latter is played as a brash kid; both depictions work)

 

Not if you've read the comics, they don't. At all. Cyclops is the X-Men - he's probably the most important character in the classic-era books (as well as being one of the coolest - the scene in which he BEATS UP THE ENTIRE TEAM as a morale-boosting exercise in an issue just before the Dark Phoenix saga is one of my favourite sequences of pure bad-assery from any superhero comic - Cyclops was always cooler, and harder, than Wolverine, until the X-Men books started going way off-track in the mid-80s), and the way the films reduce his role is one of the major problems with them.

 

Wolverine's height may seem like a non-issue to you, but again, compared with the comic, there's a big difference. Making the character physically imposing (and, not to put too fine a point on it, a hunk) changes the audience's perception of him to a massive degree - the fact that they also toned down the animalistic side of his personality just adds to this. Jackman's Wolverine is cool, and I enjoy his performance in both the films, but he's a very different character from the Wolverine who originally appeared in the comics. Again, this is before Marvel started pushing him as their central character, put him in every book on the market, and totally changed his personality/appearance - Jackman's performance is far closer to the modern version of the character. But that later version of Wolverine is crap compared with the original one, so that doesn't really help.

 

I like the X-Men films well enough (they're both seriously flawed, but still fun) as entities in and of themselves, and they capture some elements of the X-Men mythos surprisingly well. But the actual interpersonal dynamic between the characters is way, way off-base, and as a fan of the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne Uncanny X-Men, that's a problem for me.

 

Hm, ok. I'll take your word for it - I'm not an X-Men reader. Not that I've read a whole hell of a lot of Superman comics either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry about the child...

 

"You're Bald"

 

NOT FUNNY!

 

Maybe Lex pops him right after that.

 

"You're Bald"

*BANGBANGBANG*

 

Splendid trailer otherwise though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does, doesn't it? The wing coming off in his hands is a nice touch.

 

I love what we see of Spacey's Luthor, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, its cool.

I like the bit were hes flying in the universe and the camera slowly moves around him.

 

I would like to ask a question again:, what are the story-and character related differences in this film (Judging from what we know from it) and the 70s one?

And do they only use the old music fro the trailer out of respect or any other reason, or will they re-use it?

(Thats a new one)

 

Oh, and what do you guys think of the Superman series with Hatcher?

And other TV-Superman stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone pointed out on the V, though, these movies need to lay off the shitty wink-wink-nudge-nudge bullshit jokes like the one at the end of the trailer. Not only are they incredibly lazy and contrived, they're also far, far too obvious and therefore not funny at all. The "bird/plane/Superman" gag has been done thousands of times before and it wasn't funny then, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×