Superman comments on Batman...

...well, not exactly...it's Henry Cavill commenting on Ben Affleck's casting as Batman.

He talks Ben up but, c'mon...would he do anything else?

So...Summer 2015...

I'm still running on fumes right now, but one of the 'outings' at SDCC has been on my mind:

It's been made clear that the film won't be adapting The Dark Knight Returns...even though they had a guy read from the book to the crowd as the announcement was made.

This shows that DC/WB are taking a different route than Marvel Studios.

With Iron Man, Marvel Studios made a statement. They said "We're making a film with one of our characters our way." And it worked, making over $585 million worldwide.

For their next film, Marvel Studios used a completely different character in a completely different story, but through references, dialogue and eventually a cameo appearance, Marvel Studios made an even bigger statement: "We're building a movie universe."

Over at DC/WB, Man of Steel also made a statement. It said "We're giving Superman a fresh approach." And it worked, making over $636 million worldwide.

That's right folks - MoS has brought in more money than Iron Man.

But just like with Marvel Studios, the second film that DC/WB comes out with is making the bigger statement: "We're building a movie universe one sequel at a time."

Yeah, there's talk of a Flash film in 2016 and a Justice League film in 2017, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they announce the follow-up film to Batman vs. Superman/Superman vs. Batman with another image:

10 WTF? Castings...

I came across another list on whatculture.com about "Insane Castings That Almost Ruined Comic Book Movies" and felt obliged to offer my thoughts...

10) Bill Murray as Batman.

This was during the Burton years, and I never heard this rumor, but picturing him in the mask alone makes me scratch my head never mind the costume.

On a side note, David Duchovny was considered for the role somewhere between Batman Returns and Batman & Robin.

9) Madonna as Harley Quinn.

This is news to me. Guess there was a plan to follow up B&R with another Schumacher film featuring Harley.

Director aside, I'm not against a Harley film, and I think Madonna could have done a decent job (check out her work in Dick Tracy)...back in the eighties.

8) Dougray Scott as Wolverine.

This one I heard about, and now we bring alternate realities to the table. If it wasn't for an injury caused during Mission Impossible's filming, this would have happened, and we never would have heard of Hugh Jackman.

Better or worse...it sure would have been different.

7) Tom Cruise as Iron Man.

First reaction? No F**kin' Way!

Then I thought about it. Before RDJ owned the role, I could see Cruise's name on the list...for the film, and the Iron Man franchise. But the entire MMU?

No F**king Way!

6) Sylvester Stallone as Superman.

Okay. I know RDJ can't be Tony Stark forever anymore than Christopher Reeve could be Clark Kent. But Goddamn!

I will say that Stallone would have made a decent Kent (Tango and Cash anyone?), but Superman?
 
No F**king Way!

5) John Krasinski as Captain America.

No. Just...no.

4) Nic Cage as Scarecrow.

This actually makes some kind of weird sense to me.

It would have happened in the same film Madonna played Harley, and that would've been one wacky-ass film.

3) Neil Diamond as Superman.

WTF? If the Salkinds were doing the musical, maybe. (HUGE maybe), but apparently Diamond pushed hard for the role.

Talk about wacky-ass films...

2) Willem Dafoe as Batman.

This is just s#!t. Burton thought about it, and realized that he just didn't fit.

My opinion? He's still got potential for a good role in a superhero film (his Green Goblin was good, not phenom) but I'll have to get back to you on who...

1) Nic Cage as Superman.

You knew this was coming...

In a nutshell - you can't recast a role done to perfection with a similar looking actor ( i.e. Superman Returns) because script aside there's too much similarity to what's been done before.

You have to go different.

Whomever replaces Jackman, RDJ, and Stewart (to name just a few) will have a hard enough time without the added stress of looking like the actor(s) being replaced. They'll need to make the role(s) their own, while still remaining true to the character(s).

James Bond is a great example of this. Moviegoers knew when the actor was being replaced, and if you look at the films and the men involved, the least popular was On Her Majesty's Secret Service, not because of the story - where (spoiler) Bond gets married...and widowed...in the same film, and not because of the supporting cast - Diana Rigg played the doomed Teresa di Vicenzo. I think it's because lead actor George Lazenby looked (and played it) too darned much like Sean Connery.

So, while Cage as Superman isn't the right choice...it was definitely the right direction...

Any thoughts?

So...Man of Steel Trailer #2...

Let me say that despite my growing up a Marvel Zombie and my trust in all things Marvel Studios,

I really, REALLY want this movie to do well, but after seeing this trailer, I don't know.

Here's why:
1) It's another retelling of the origin. Going back to the well of Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie is cinematic suicide as far as I'm concerned. That film was perfection. It didn't raise the bar. It didn't set the bar.
It BUILT the bar. And placed it on the stand...which it ALSO built.

2) It's another attempt to reboot the Superman franchise. Bryan Singer tried it...and failed. Is it wise to try again?

3) The only way this film could work (taking 1 and 2 into consideration) is if DC and Warner planned on using this film to reboot not only the Superman franchise, but the entire DC Cinematic Universe...

...which they're not.

As an aside, that beam we see destroying part of Earth? That's either from The Eradicator, Braniac or both.

'Nuff said.

And speaking of movie sequels...

PLEASE BE GOOD...PLEASE BE GOOD...PLEASE BE GOOD...PLEASE BE GOOD!!!

WTF?

Superman - Grounded

A while back, before the DCU became the DCnU (arguably called the DCfU), Superman spent some time “walking the Earth” in the ‘Grounded’ storyline. I understand the thoughts behind this; he went around meeting people in an attempt to get back in touch with his humanity, as DC attempted to get their flagship character back up in sales, but the execution fell far short of expectations.

What they should have done was give Clark control over the family farm.

Jonathan and Martha Kent are old. They’ve been running that farm for a long time, and even with the hiring of hands during the busy seasons the two of them just can’t do as much as they used to.

So why not have them visit Clark in Metropolis and ask him to take over?

This would have given Clark the opportunity to be “grounded” and get back in touch with the common man by doing his part to feed the country if not the world. He would have been working the Earth instead of walking it, and brought much needed attention to the struggles farmers face today.

But no, DC thought Kal-el was better off being Caine from Kung-Fu.

Marvel already did that storyline in the eighties when Steve Rogers gave up being Captain America and drove across America in his van before becoming The Captain – a guise that eventually went to John Walker and he became USAgent.

Stupid DC…

My Take On...

Identity Crisis #6

The cover conveys several messages:

1) Bruce grieves for Tim's father Jack Drake.

2) Bruce blames himself for Jack's death.

3) Batman can't believe the writers decided to do this to him...AGAIN!

I understand the whole point of the story is about heroes whose work follows them home. That the dangers they face can turn around and bite them in their collective asses. I get it.

I also understand that key supporting characters had to die in order to prove the point.

But after what happened to Bruce, Dick, Barbara and Tim, did Jack Drake really have to die?

My answer: NO, he didn't.

Here's what I think.

Meltzer's original draft had the killer go after Jonathan Kent. Which makes sense. Lois getting the letter at the end of issue four lead us to believe that she was the next target. The twist would have been that with Clark focusing on Lois' safety, he would not have been there to protect Jonathan. It also would have worked with the Father's Day theme.

My guess is that someone at DC said "EH, eh" to that, and Meltzer had to come up with another father quickly to save the story.

They couldn't kill Oliver again, and Tim was already in the story, so no problem...easy fix.

WRONG!

I've already gone on about Tim in an earlier post, so I won't repeat it here.

But think about this:

1) Clark would have been devastated at the loss of the only father he's ever known (and technically the second father he's lost).

2) Clark would have certainly thought twice about putting Lois in danger, and maybe even considered divorce.

3) Bruce would have ABSOLUTELY been there for Clark, and have the same drive and determination to find the killer he has with Jack being the victim.

4) Jonathan's death would have had a huge impact on the rest of the JLA and the DCU. While it might have lessened the tragedy of Sue's death, consider that Clark would have had to grieve as Clark - meaning very few people would know that Superman was affected by the death of an old Kansas farmer, whereas Ralph could grieve openly.

5) Many villains would wonder why Jonathan was targeted in the first place, thus putting Clark's identity in jeopardy.

and 6) It's already been done in the movies and on television.

Switching Jonathan for Jack would not have changed the overall story, and would certainly have opened up lots of potential future stories.

Besides...they could always bring Jonathan back if they had to.