Reply With QuoteJudi Dench in the Bond reboot.Originally Posted by Telefrog
I thought Routh was a really good Superman. I don't think he's box-office poison; I do think that there is no way they can have him in the role without the movie being set in the Singer continuity. He has had the Clooney/Batman misfortune of being in the Superman movie with the blandest retread of a story possible.
Judi Dench in the Bond reboot.
Well, I don't think Jon Hamm is six feet tall based only on how he looks standing next to the various female characters on Mad Men, but even assuming that he is, I'd still say he's too short. Superman is supposed to be what, 6' 6" or something. I'd think anyone playing Superman would have to be at least 6' 2" or 6' 3". It's got to be someone that's a fair amount taller than the average man.
It's the easiest story to tell, and it still sells tickets.
That's really Hamm's biggest problem. Having seen him on 30 Rock and Mad Men, I'm pretty sure that he could play both roles he'd need to, but the man looks like he's fifty on his show, and he's not even that old. It would be awesome if they grayed up his hair a little and did a sort of Kingdom Come angle, but I suspect that might be a tough sell. For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing a Superman movie that took on the Miracleman/The Sellouts story from Powers angle, but I'll be shocked if it happens.
I'd watch that for sure, but I agree that it would be very tough sell. You certainly couldn't relaunch the franchise with that film.
His IMDB profile says he's 6'0" tall. They can make him "look" taller with camera tricks (see Tom Cruise (5'7") and Kelly McGillis (5'10") in Top Gun). Hugh Jackman is 6'2" but Wolverine in the comics is about 5'3" tall.
The movie version is based upon Ultimate Wolverine, who is Hugh Jackman's actual height.
Actually... there may be a good reason.
The origin of Superman is one of the things WB doesn't own and loses the rights to next year. In this reboot, it would make sense, from a business stand point, to make a new origin for Superman. They run the risk of fans standup and saying this movie got it wrong.
Since when? He's Superman, not Giantman.
Even though that series came out after the first X-Men movie?
More likely the other way around...
According to the DC Comics wiki profile of Superman / Clark Kent, he's 6'3".
That's right - it was because Hugh Jackman was associated with the character that they decided to make Wolverine his height in the Ultimate universe. The movie also had no interest in trying to depict him as tiny, despite that being a key aspect of the character in the comics.
The character substantially evolved in the comics from a short, scrappy, social misfit who was the weakest of the X-men (and possibly evolved from an actual wolverine) to a wise samuri loner who was 150 years old who can't be killed and is an unstoppable killer.
But a Canadian nonetheless.
Interesting. I thought he was taller than that. He sure looks much taller than that compared to the other people around him in a lot of comic depictions I've seen.
In the Timm-verse at least, he often hovers a foot or so off the ground when encountering somebody to look imposing, but is roughly the same size as the other heroes otherwise.
In the Justice League New Frontier animated movie, Wonder Woman is shown to be taller than Superman, which I thought was a pretty cool and striking detail.
Heels? That and she IS an Amazon after all.
Yep. The visual really makes an impression because Superman is usually shown to be the biggest person in any given scene, but Wonder Woman is taller and somewhat broader than even the Man of Steel. The New Frontier flick is really well done too. I'd definitely recommend it, though it's much more of a Green Lantern story than anything else.
I was thinking about this on my way into work this morning and while other people have touched on it, really what it boils down to is that the origin story is easily the most compelling part of a superhero's story and the one that translates best to the medium of film. Once you get past the origin story, it's really difficult to maintain the same level of dramatic interest and, perhaps more importantly, keep things from getting silly.
Actually, the last point may be key. As comic book readers we are willing to accept things that are pretty darn silly on the face of it. This doesn't work so well on the screen. The origin story works because it starts with the world as we know it and shows you how you get from there to a place where men can climb walls or dress up like bats. The audience is along for the ride and our disbelief and wonder is mirrored by the characters as they under go these transformations.
Once you get past that origin story it's hard to stay teathered to the real world and things get silly fast. Maybe this is not a huge issue for people who are comic book fans to begin with but for just about everyone else, the appeal is lessened.
All of the best superhero movies are origin stories for this reason. The Dark Knight avoids this trap somewhat by focussing on The Joker but Batman himself comes off a bit silly in that movie. (And really, the first Nolan Batman movie breaks down in the final act, once we've dispensed with the origin.) I think a lot of super hero sequels focus on villain origins perhaps trying to re-capture that transformation which draws us into this hard to swallow universe but mostly they are unsuccessful. Dark Knight's success probably had more to do with Nolan's style and Ledger's performance than it did with the story which was ultimately flawed.
Spiderman 2 is the other superhero sequel that didn't spiral immediately into absurdity and some of that has to do with the inherent strength of the Spiderman story -- Even after he gains his super powers, Peter Parker remains an average guy with average guy problems. We're still somewhat anchored in the real world. (This was the Marvel revolution but somehow they've only managed to translate that to the screen the one time. And, of course, we all know how baddly this turned out in the third Spiderman movie which was an emo mess.)
If you're worried about things getting silly, men-in-spandex-fighting-crime may not be the right genre for you.
No, I think his points are excellent. For the average audience to identify with a protagonist, they need points of similarity. The superhero origin story usually provides this--here's a guy, still within the limits of normal though they might be richer/smarter/more skilled than average, to whom something extraordinary happens, something that could potentially happen to the viewer.
The obvious exceptions to this are Superman and mutants, but they're easy to identify with in other ways. Supes is the ultimate "immigrant makes good in new home" parable (and was deliberately designed as such by his creators), while mutants like the X-men are outcasts who are better/stronger/faster than the society that rejects them, every picked-upon nerd's dream.
If you want Superman to really work you have to nail the image and demeanor of the everyman. The pseudo-nerdy Clark Kent of Christopher Reeve fame no longer exists in the public, and copies of him no longer have any analogue at large; what you want is your average Nickleback fan with a square jaw and a glint in his eye.
Superhero origin stories are fine and all, but the main problem with Superman's story is that it's freaking BORING. After an uneventful childhood in an idyllic farming community, Superman is immediately received as a hero within his first two appearances in costume. There IS no conflict and nothing for the average viewer to identify with. Contrast this with Batman, a grief-stricken child who transforms himself into the ultimate detective and warrior to fight crime, or Spider-Man, a guilt-ridden teenager who's single selfish act caused the death of his uncle. THOSE are characters.
So yeah, forget Superman and his lame beginnings. Go straight to the part where the ultimate good guy with the power to wreck planets squares off against someone as powerful as he is. Just let the computer auto render destruction for two hours and call it good.
Just like Jesus.
Tell Supreme Power instead.
That's why Superman has to be a mouthbreather. The character doesn't make sense unless he's such a simple Simon, corn fed son of the Bible Belt that has never seen a skyscraper, that when suddenly given Supreme Ultimate Power he doesn't know what to do with it or even where to begin.
Most of the time he solves a problem by hitting it really hard. Or hefting it up and carrying it somewhere else ..
I think I mentioned it before but I think the best Superman movie might be where he isn't the main character but centers around people living in a world with Superman. Not the creepy a Surpreme power/Irredeemable Superman. Just the regular Superman. One of the smart things Burton did with his Batman movies was making Batman a secondary character. Most of the scenes in those movies have other characters talking about The batman and dealing with The Batman. Sure there where a few Bruce Wayne moments but lets take those out even. We don't need to see nerdy Clark Kent fumble around Lois Lane. We don't need any sweeping views of wheat fields. We need to see are decent villians whose lives have been ruined since this over powered boy scout came into town and they have a pretty good plan on how to deal with him. (and fail anyway)
Yeah, the movie fell off a cliff after the plane incident. Up to that point it was entertaining enough, but When Crystals Attack was just utterly boring.
Posting Permissions
