@Matt I don't feel bad for Cavill: having great actors around you can bump up your game. Give you more to work off of. Raise the bar on the whole project. There is being pushed aside, but there is also being given excellent people to collaborate with.
Should we have felt bad for a young Christopher Reeve having Gene Hackman to work with? Did Michael Keaton suffer for having his Batman go up against Jack Nicholson?
My concern would be less if this was a side movie during his trilogy or at the end. I think once Batman gets added to the cast, it becomes HIS movie. Casting a mega-superstar to play the role, along with another mega-star to play the villain (which isn't even a Batman villain), reminds me of how Daimian was treated once Batman returned. They had him Robin to Dick's Batman rather then his father. It was a subtle way to keep him Robin, keep him paired with a Batman, keep the son for Batman, BUT still have Batman without his son as he was globetrotting for his corporation.
It's supposed to be Cavill's Superman's sequel, but have this strong feeling he will be overshadowed by Batman and Luthor (since big names are now casted), rather then build on what was presented in the first movie. It's like saying "yeah, Man of Steel did well, but it didn't do Batman well. Let's add Bats, Luthor, cast them both as big name stars, THEN we'll get that next $billion dollar movie."
M
It all comes down to how the movie is structured. If an older Batman is in it as a mentor, or even antagonist-that-becomes-a-mentor, then it is still Superman's movie. The villain of the movie is a Superman villain. That also points to it being more of a Superman movie. Sure, adding Batman takes some attention away, but it also gets more people to show up to the movie. And, if they choose, they could do that even in a movie where Superman has more screen time.
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
@Matt I don't feel bad for Cavill: having great actors around you can bump up your game. Give you more to work off of. Raise the bar on the whole project. There is being pushed aside, but there is also being given excellent people to collaborate with.
Should we have felt bad for a young Christopher Reeve having Gene Hackman to work with? Did Michael Keaton suffer for having his Batman go up against Jack Nicholson?
My concern would be less if this was a side movie during his trilogy or at the end. I think once Batman gets added to the cast, it becomes HIS movie. Casting a mega-superstar to play the role, along with another mega-star to play the villain (which isn't even a Batman villain), reminds me of how Damien was treated once Batman returned. They had him Robin to Dick's Batman rather then his father. It was a subtle way to keep him Robin, keep him paired with a Batman, keep the son for Batman, BUT still have Batman without his son as he was globetrotting for his corporation.
It's supposed to be Cavill's Superman's sequel, but have this strong feeling he will be overshadowed by Batman and Luthor (since big names are now casted), rather then build on what was presented in the first movie. It's like saying "yeah, Man of Steel did well, but it didn't do Batman well. Let's add Bats, Luthor, cast them both as big name stars, THEN we'll get that next $billion dollar movie."
M
It all comes down to how the movie is structured. If an older Batman is in it as a mentor, or even antagonist-that-becomes-a-mentor, then it is still Superman's movie. The villain of the movie is a Superman villain. That also points to it being more of a Superman movie. Sure, adding Batman takes some attention away, but it also gets more people to show up to the movie. And, if they choose, they could do that even in a movie where Superman has more screen time.
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
I think the move with Damien was a subtle compromise. If you didn't like him, then technically, Damien was not with his father/Batman (Batman was traveling Robin-less to build his corporation.) If you did like him, Damien was still Robin and paired with Batman...just not BATMAN (which actually made Batman look like an abandoning father.)
It's like when DC announced Green Lantern was gay. Yeah, Green Lantern is gay, but not THE Green Lantern most people immediately think of; Hal Jordan. In fact, it's probably the 3rd or 4th on the GL depth chart (despite the fact he really isn't a GL) people think of. It's a subtle compromise.
@Matt I don't feel bad for Cavill: having great actors around you can bump up your game. Give you more to work off of. Raise the bar on the whole project. There is being pushed aside, but there is also being given excellent people to collaborate with.
Should we have felt bad for a young Christopher Reeve having Gene Hackman to work with? Did Michael Keaton suffer for having his Batman go up against Jack Nicholson?
My concern would be less if this was a side movie during his trilogy or at the end. I think once Batman gets added to the cast, it becomes HIS movie. Casting a mega-superstar to play the role, along with another mega-star to play the villain (which isn't even a Batman villain), reminds me of how Damien was treated once Batman returned. They had him Robin to Dick's Batman rather then his father. It was a subtle way to keep him Robin, keep him paired with a Batman, keep the son for Batman, BUT still have Batman without his son as he was globetrotting for his corporation.
It's supposed to be Cavill's Superman's sequel, but have this strong feeling he will be overshadowed by Batman and Luthor (since big names are now casted), rather then build on what was presented in the first movie. It's like saying "yeah, Man of Steel did well, but it didn't do Batman well. Let's add Bats, Luthor, cast them both as big name stars, THEN we'll get that next $billion dollar movie."
M
It all comes down to how the movie is structured. If an older Batman is in it as a mentor, or even antagonist-that-becomes-a-mentor, then it is still Superman's movie. The villain of the movie is a Superman villain. That also points to it being more of a Superman movie. Sure, adding Batman takes some attention away, but it also gets more people to show up to the movie. And, if they choose, they could do that even in a movie where Superman has more screen time.
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
I think the move with Damien was a subtle compromise. If you didn't like him, then technically, Damien was not with his father/Batman (Batman was traveling Robin-less to build his corporation.) If you did like him, Damien was still Robin and paired with Batman...just not BATMAN (which actually made Batman look like an abandoning father.) M
I know I am focusing on the off-topic thing for a minute, but when I comes to the Damien comparison, I don't agree. Damien got a lot of attention, even in Batman Inc. He was the star of the Dick/Damien era (if anything, I would say he might have overshadowed Dick in that run of issues, as the stories were less about Dick trying to fill the suit as it was Dick trying to keep Damien in check). Then when Bruce returned, you still had a very Damien-oriented Batman & Robin book (where Bruce had to deal with the son who he didn't want to become Robin being Robin). And even when Morrison left B&R and went to Batman Inc., you still had a lot of Damien in that book, especially towards the end (in addition to Damien still having a staring role in the Batman & Robin book that Tomasi took over from Morrison).
The end of Batman Inc., which was also the end of Morrison's whole era on Batman, was all about Damien. So if someone thought they were buying Batman Inc. to not read about Damien, they would would have been disappointed.
That was at least my experience from reading them. It didn't feel like a compromise to me.
@Matt I don't feel bad for Cavill: having great actors around you can bump up your game. Give you more to work off of. Raise the bar on the whole project. There is being pushed aside, but there is also being given excellent people to collaborate with.
Should we have felt bad for a young Christopher Reeve having Gene Hackman to work with? Did Michael Keaton suffer for having his Batman go up against Jack Nicholson?
My concern would be less if this was a side movie during his trilogy or at the end. I think once Batman gets added to the cast, it becomes HIS movie. Casting a mega-superstar to play the role, along with another mega-star to play the villain (which isn't even a Batman villain), reminds me of how Damien was treated once Batman returned. They had him Robin to Dick's Batman rather then his father. It was a subtle way to keep him Robin, keep him paired with a Batman, keep the son for Batman, BUT still have Batman without his son as he was globetrotting for his corporation.
It's supposed to be Cavill's Superman's sequel, but have this strong feeling he will be overshadowed by Batman and Luthor (since big names are now casted), rather then build on what was presented in the first movie. It's like saying "yeah, Man of Steel did well, but it didn't do Batman well. Let's add Bats, Luthor, cast them both as big name stars, THEN we'll get that next $billion dollar movie."
M
It all comes down to how the movie is structured. If an older Batman is in it as a mentor, or even antagonist-that-becomes-a-mentor, then it is still Superman's movie. The villain of the movie is a Superman villain. That also points to it being more of a Superman movie. Sure, adding Batman takes some attention away, but it also gets more people to show up to the movie. And, if they choose, they could do that even in a movie where Superman has more screen time.
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
I think the move with Damien was a subtle compromise. If you didn't like him, then technically, Damien was not with his father/Batman (Batman was traveling Robin-less to build his corporation.) If you did like him, Damien was still Robin and paired with Batman...just not BATMAN (which actually made Batman look like an abandoning father.) M
I know I am focusing on the off-topic thing for a minute, but when I comes to the Damien comparison, I don't agree. Damien got a lot of attention, even in Batman Inc. He was the star of the Dick/Damien era (if anything, I would say he might have overshadowed Dick in that run of issues, as the stories were less about Dick trying to fill the suit as it was Dick trying to keep Damien in check). Then when Bruce returned, you still had a very Damien-oriented Batman & Robin book (where Bruce had to deal with the son who he didn't want to become Robin being Robin). And even when Morrison left B&R and went to Batman Inc., you still had a lot of Damien in that book, especially towards the end (in addition to Damien still having a staring role in the Batman & Robin book that Tomasi took over from Morrison).
The end of Batman Inc., which was also the end of Morrison's whole era on Batman, was all about Damien. So if someone thought they were buying Batman Inc. to not read about Damien, they would would have been disappointed.
That was at least my experience from reading them. It didn't feel like a compromise to me.
Don't worry, I've gotten way beyond off-topic criticism long before this. Damien was technically paired with Dick instead of Batman. Batman & Robin was with Dick & Damien even after Batman returned. I see it as a compromise until n52 when there was only one Batman. At that point, Batman is working with his son and Dick is Nightwing again (and something very weird happened with "Tim Drake")
But it was like Hackman & Co. and Reeve & Co. were in two different movies.
I didn't mind it. To me, it worked, I liked the contrast between them, beacause who is a better straight man than Superman? I mean, I was a kid, sure, but I loved Hackman's Luthor.
Regardless, putting aside our own tastes and getting back to the question at hand: if you were a 20something Christopher Reeve, and you were told that they got Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Marlon (#*&!ing) Brando to be in the movie where YOU play the title role, do you think you would complain? Or would you think that maybe the movie you are in is being treated like it is a huge deal and you are about to get your profile raised by being given all those Oscar winners to play against?
@Matt I don't feel bad for Cavill: having great actors around you can bump up your game. Give you more to work off of. Raise the bar on the whole project. There is being pushed aside, but there is also being given excellent people to collaborate with.
Should we have felt bad for a young Christopher Reeve having Gene Hackman to work with? Did Michael Keaton suffer for having his Batman go up against Jack Nicholson?
My concern would be less if this was a side movie during his trilogy or at the end. I think once Batman gets added to the cast, it becomes HIS movie. Casting a mega-superstar to play the role, along with another mega-star to play the villain (which isn't even a Batman villain), reminds me of how Damien was treated once Batman returned. They had him Robin to Dick's Batman rather then his father. It was a subtle way to keep him Robin, keep him paired with a Batman, keep the son for Batman, BUT still have Batman without his son as he was globetrotting for his corporation.
It's supposed to be Cavill's Superman's sequel, but have this strong feeling he will be overshadowed by Batman and Luthor (since big names are now casted), rather then build on what was presented in the first movie. It's like saying "yeah, Man of Steel did well, but it didn't do Batman well. Let's add Bats, Luthor, cast them both as big name stars, THEN we'll get that next $billion dollar movie."
M
It all comes down to how the movie is structured. If an older Batman is in it as a mentor, or even antagonist-that-becomes-a-mentor, then it is still Superman's movie. The villain of the movie is a Superman villain. That also points to it being more of a Superman movie. Sure, adding Batman takes some attention away, but it also gets more people to show up to the movie. And, if they choose, they could do that even in a movie where Superman has more screen time.
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
I think the move with Damien was a subtle compromise. If you didn't like him, then technically, Damien was not with his father/Batman (Batman was traveling Robin-less to build his corporation.) If you did like him, Damien was still Robin and paired with Batman...just not BATMAN (which actually made Batman look like an abandoning father.) M
I know I am focusing on the off-topic thing for a minute, but when I comes to the Damien comparison, I don't agree. Damien got a lot of attention, even in Batman Inc. He was the star of the Dick/Damien era (if anything, I would say he might have overshadowed Dick in that run of issues, as the stories were less about Dick trying to fill the suit as it was Dick trying to keep Damien in check). Then when Bruce returned, you still had a very Damien-oriented Batman & Robin book (where Bruce had to deal with the son who he didn't want to become Robin being Robin). And even when Morrison left B&R and went to Batman Inc., you still had a lot of Damien in that book, especially towards the end (in addition to Damien still having a staring role in the Batman & Robin book that Tomasi took over from Morrison).
The end of Batman Inc., which was also the end of Morrison's whole era on Batman, was all about Damien. So if someone thought they were buying Batman Inc. to not read about Damien, they would would have been disappointed.
That was at least my experience from reading them. It didn't feel like a compromise to me.
Don't worry, I've gotten way beyond off-topic criticism long before this. Damien was technically paired with Dick instead of Batman. Batman & Robin was with Dick & Damien even after Batman returned. I see it as a compromise until n52 when there was only one Batman. At that point, Batman is working with his son and Dick is Nightwing again (and something very weird happened with "Tim Drake")
M
Well, for what it is worth, by B&R #16 (vol 1) it was a book that had TWO Batmans in it. And after that it was only a handful of issues (in which I believe Bruce was still a presence) before the relaunch. And, again, Damien was a presence in Batman Inc. So personally I don't agree that it was a compromise. Some cake-and-eat-it-to way of pleasing both Damien fans and Damien haters. Damien was all over the place. Was he in every Batman book? Of course not. But people read Batman for Batman, right? ;)
That's a bummer. I never saw a link to where this originated, so I thought (and, I guess, hoped) that this was an announcement. Didn't realize it was a rumor.
But one look at the original story, which claims that Cranston has been signed for anywhere from six to 10 appearances as Luthor, will tip off anyone with average intelligence that this is garbage. For one thing, the same story claims that Ben Affleck has signed for 13 film appearances as Batman, which would probably make him around 70 by the time he finished playing the role.
OK I missed that part of the story.
Though now I'm hearing it said out loud I kind of like the idea of me getting a senior citizen discount to go watch Batman Beyond: The Movie with Affleck playing Bruce Wayne
Saw somebody say they wanted Idris Elba is Lex Luthor and I started drooling. That would be some interesting casting.
Ya know that could actually work for me
Damn the more I think of this the more I love it. Dont think I could see him as the mad scientist version, but the brilliant, ruthless, charismatic businessman burried in secrets and driven by agendas oh yeah.
In other news Daredevil is still Batman. How do you like them apples?
Well, I think he would have been a good choice. He's a good actor, even though I can't watch Breaking Bad. I was suspicious of the reports of him being signed for so many movies.
Who knows, maybe the WB crew will see all the positive buzz this got and actually try to hire him.
Comments
I'll think he'll be a great Luthor, but also think he would've done very well as Gordon and mark strong a great luthor as well
As for the comparison to Damien and Batman, I am not sure I follow-- are you saying that Damien got overshadowed when Batman returned? Or that Bruce was overshadowed by Damien being in the book?
It's like when DC announced Green Lantern was gay. Yeah, Green Lantern is gay, but not THE Green Lantern most people immediately think of; Hal Jordan. In fact, it's probably the 3rd or 4th on the GL depth chart (despite the fact he really isn't a GL) people think of. It's a subtle compromise.
M
The end of Batman Inc., which was also the end of Morrison's whole era on Batman, was all about Damien. So if someone thought they were buying Batman Inc. to not read about Damien, they would would have been disappointed.
That was at least my experience from reading them. It didn't feel like a compromise to me.
But it was like Hackman & Co. and Reeve & Co. were in two different movies.
M
Regardless, putting aside our own tastes and getting back to the question at hand: if you were a 20something Christopher Reeve, and you were told that they got Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Marlon (#*&!ing) Brando to be in the movie where YOU play the title role, do you think you would complain? Or would you think that maybe the movie you are in is being treated like it is a huge deal and you are about to get your profile raised by being given all those Oscar winners to play against?
(I know what I'd think!)
Keep your hair on: Bryan Cranston is not Lex Luthor in 'Man of Steel' sequel
In other news Daredevil is still Batman. How do you like them apples?
Though now I'm hearing it said out loud I kind of like the idea of me getting a senior citizen discount to go watch Batman Beyond: The Movie with Affleck playing Bruce Wayne
Who knows, maybe the WB crew will see all the positive buzz this got and actually try to hire him.