@The:
Found it! Read this Bill:
http://io9.com/5657139/darren-aronofsky-offered-wolverine-2-wasnt-given-superman-because-the-scripts-a-mess
Whatever the case, at least this movie will have Supes punching someone. Zach Snyder said his version of Supes is a physical cat and that he should kickass.
Action- Synder uses the same thing in every movie, slo-mo fight scenes over emphasizing everything. They were revolutionary in 300, decent in Watchmen, and horrible in Sucker Punch, see the trend? Plus people complain about that style now since it's become so mainstream. While Synder will throw action in the movie, I'm not sure it will be any good.
We'll wait and see.
Performances- I can't see Amy Adams as Lois, Crowe fits, The rest of the cast, ehhhh, we'll see how they interact with the MCs. As for Henry Cavill you have to wonder if they're trying to doom this movie by casting him in the lead. He's almost unheard of here in America, he looks little like Superman, and I'm sure that The Immortals will hurt him and this movie more than people realize.
Hmm, it seems your using the fact that Cavil is an unknown unfairly against him, might I remind you that the legendary Christopher Reeve was also an unknown actor when cast as the Man of Steel.
Personally I prefer he is an unknown, I don't want an established actor playing Superman, it wouldn't feel right.
And Adams can pull Lois Lane pretty well, she could be part of those actors 'that seem to not fit the role, but they actually do list'.
Story- Absolute garbage according to some of the directors that turned down the project. Sure Goyer and Nolan worked on the idea and script but Goyer turned out a pile of crap that directors refused to work with.
Goyer is not exactly the best writer in the world, but if Begins is any proof, he can pull of a good script if he has good source material to work with, and Superman has a tons of strong source material that would inspire great films, if handled right. Besides I'm sure the script is in healthy shape now or Cavil would not have praised it as one of the best scripts he's ever read.
Villain- General Zod is easily the worst choice. Sure Michael Shannon is a great, even fantastic actor, but using Zod as the villain for this movie is a HUGE mistake. Your trying to redo the series but you're using the exact same villain from the first series that you're trying to redo. Makes a lot of sense. There are far more interesting villains that could have been chosen and instead you go with the one guy who's just going to draw criticisms because they'll be comparing him to Terrence Stamp's Zod.
Like who? Superman doesn't exactly have the greatest rogues gallery to begin with, he only really has Brainac, Luthor, and Darksied aside from that, he only has D or C list villains like Bizzaro and Toyman, that ether work best on live-action as side-villain material, or work awfully do to the audience most likely not willing to take them seriously. His more grander-scale villains like Brainiac, and Darksied need foreshadowing, and proper build-up to have their threat known. Using one of them in an origin film, would be a disservice to their characters, they need to be hyped up for later films so the viewer can feel the weight of their threat.
Zod was most likely chosen, due to his thematic link to Superman being like him, one of the last survivors of Krypton, that and he's human looking so the audience can immediately engage with him.
He's seems to be the perfect candidate for an origin villain. I think the fact people will be comparing it to Terrence Stamps version would be a delight, it'll be reminiscent to Heath vs Nicholson Joker debate.
Who made the better Zod?
Stamp, or Shannon?
Zod is a very smart choice for this villain, no the only real choice for this films villain.
Besides where the flying fuck is Lex Luthor????? One of the Core elements to the Superman Universe is the ongoing battle between Lex Luthor and Superman, they are ying and yang, good and evil, human and alien. Ignoring this aspect is foolish.
There either have not announced his casting yet, or they are going the Dark Knight route and save the archenemy for the sequel(Joker anyone?) . I personally don't want Luthor to take center stage as the main baddie again, he's too much a victim of overexposure… Then again Luthor is too public a presence in Metropolis to not appear in this film. Either way I expect him to maybe cameo in this film by having his younger self meet young Clark Kent in Smallviile .
But he won't exactly take center stage as the villain like in previous films(especially the last one) if he does appear.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@RobbyBevard:
Superman should just be a period film set in the 50's. That way you can keep all the iconography of the characters intact (including the farmland upbringing, the fedora for Clark, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and working at a major metropolitan newspaper) it instantly makes it timeless and averts dating, and you don't have to deal with, you know, modern technology. Supes would not be able to keep his identity secret in this day and age of sattelites and cell phone cameras and what not.
Its just easier to buy into, and has a greater sense of wonder, if its in the yesteryear. We're more cynical now.
Would love to see a period piece Supes film. It'll never happen, so I'll have to settle for the Fleisher shorts. But still…
The original Donner film managed to have a timeless feel too, somehow. Its set somewhere in the 60-70's as Clark grows up, but the then "future" of the 90's... somehow.
The Donner film has aged pretty badly, its revered for nostalgia reasons but they don't hold up to today. Its a product of its time.
I think Wonder Woman works best as a period piece, Superman I'm not too sure.
All and all, I want a good Superman film and call me a fool if you like, but I think Snyder will deliver me that.
Or am I setting myself up for disappointment?
