Are Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder Looking for an Older SUPERMAN?

by     Posted 4 years, 2 days ago

superman_kingdom_come_older_alex_ross_slice_01

Prepare to be confused about what direction Superman: The Man of Steel is going.  Our previous reports indicated that the new film would be a reboot of sorts.  Director Zack Snyder said the new film would “focus on early days of Superman.”  There was also a logline that said the new film would have Clark Kent traveling the world and wondering if he should even become Superman.  However, screenwriter David Goyer previously indicated that the new film would not be an origin story.

Now comes the baffling report that the production may be looking for an actor that is around “35-40″ to play the Man of Steel.  Hit the jump for why Jon Hamm may be smiling.

In an interview with Armie Hammer (The Social Network, right), Vulture mentioned that he was on plenty of fan-casting lists to play Superman in the new film.  Here’s the exchange:

You’ve made a lot of people’s Superman fantasy-casting lists. Did you have your people put in a call to Zack Snyder, who’s directing the reboot?

[Laughs.] You know what’s funny? I did talk to my people recently about that for the first time, and I think they’re going a little older with Superman. I hear they’re going 35, 40.

For those wondering, Hammer is only 24 (although if they were/are casting a younger Superman, I think he’d be fantastic).

And while Snyder recently told News of the World that Brandon Routh may not be out of the running, Routh is only 31 (although with age make-up I could see him passing for older).  Then you have the 39-year-old Hamm, who told Movieline that he was open to the possibility.  But Hamm, Routh, and Hammer are all fan-casting and fans don’t know what kind of movie Snyder, Goyer, and producer Christopher Nolan are going for (beyond setting the film in a “modern context”, whatever that means) and which actor will be right not only for the new Superman, but presumably for the franchise that Warner Bros. is trying to re-invigorate.

It’s not out of the realm of possibility to cast an older actor as Superman.  Paramount recently brought on Jeremy Renner (age 39) to the Mission: Impossible franchise with the plan to have him lead future films in the series.  However, it is generally better to cast younger simply to keep the same face attached to the franchise as long as possible.  Superman as a character poses his own problems because (depending on which comics you read) he doesn’t age since “aging” would be a counter to the whole invincibility thing.

Personally, I’m getting the feeling that wires have been crossed somewhere and that this game of telephone has yielded some erroneous or at least out-of-date info.  It’s already happened as it looked liked General Zod would be the villain in the new movie, but then Snyder said that was only a rumor. We’ll keep you updated on this bizarre turn of events that now has the film with an old Superman at the beginning of his career.

superman_alex_ross_01




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • IllusionOfLife

    I’m hoping this rumor turns out to be true, I’m definitely much more interested in hearing the story of a slightly older Superman than *another* origin story. It’d be an interesting take on the character that many haven’t seen before, and could really breathe some new life into the franchise.

    • Super8grain

      why *another* origin story? It was only told in the Donner film more than 30 years ago. Are you talking about Smallville?
      What Smallville has done shouldn’t even have weight to what the new film should explore or not.

      With their new take and vision, they need to do an origin story.

      • IllusionOfLife

        They also felt the need to rehash the origin story in Superman Returns, albeit not as extensively, it’s been covered countless times in the comics, and in other media, for example, Smallville.

        Everybody knows Superman’s origin story, it’s redundant information, and will take away opportunities for them to do something new. The reason that Batman Begins worked so well as an origin story was that Batman’s origin had rarely been thoroughly explored. Sure, everyone knows that Bruce’s parents were killed, but he didn’t run home after that and throw on a cape and start beating up bad guys, it was a longer process, and exploring that process is part of what made the film a success.

        With Superman, however, it’s all been said and done. Doing it again, as I said, would be redundant. I personally want to see something new regarding Superman, not the same thing we’ve been seeing for years.

      • WaltGroverTheFanboy

        Mainstream audiences don’t follow Superman in other media. Smallville has a devoted cult following and only comic book enthusiasts follow his story in comics. That’s a very small piece of the pie if you ask me. A generation has passed since the Donner films over THIRTY years ago, and Super8grain is right, they were the only ones that (briefly) explored Superman’s origin.

        I don’t agree Superman Returns rehashed Superman’s origin. I remember a flashback of young Clark, with no dialogue, jumping through fields, crashing into a barn, and discovering the Kryptonian crystal.

        The first Donner film spent a good 48 minutes on his origin, but at the time it was a very different take for a brand new audience (20 years earlier there was the extremely popular Adventures of Superman series).

        And that’s all I see Nolan and Co. doing. Retelling Superman’s origin in a fresh, new way and establishing a brand new audience for the cinematic universe. This claim that an origin story is “redundant information” isn’t a very sustainable argument. An origin story doesn’t serve as information, it serves as a purpose for you to care about the protagonist and gives you a reason to follow his or her story, and my hope is that with the talent involved, it should be done quite well.

      • IllusionOfLife

        You don’t have to follow Superman to know his origin, he is a pop culture icon and most people you ask will know at least the general idea of where Superman came from. Like Star Wars or Mickey Mouse, everyone knows Superman, and his origin story is common knowledge.

        Yes, discovering the roots of the character is one way to create an attachment with the audience, but it is not the only way. If handled properly, it could be just as effective to jump into Superman’s life after he has been doing it for some time and start the story from there. Take The Incredibles, for example, we did not need to know the origin story of Mr. Incredible, or Elasti-Girl, or Frozone, we got a brief prologue showing what life was like in the ‘golden days’ and then jumped right into their lives after they had been forced into retirement. Superman: The Man of Steel could easily do the same thing; an origin story is *not* a requirement.

        In my mind, taking time in the film to tell Superman’s origin story, something that is already common knowledge, would take time away from the opportunity to show people something they don’t already know, or haven’t seen before. Sure, an origin story could be good, but it’s not as exciting as showing a side of Superman that people don’t know. Superman is a stale character in the minds’ of the general public, he’s often viewed as outdated and one dimensional; another origin story is not what the character needs to be reinvented for a modern audience, what the character really needs is something deeply personal and character driven, something to really flesh out who Superman is and cast him in a light that people aren’t expecting. That’s what will make The Man of Steel truly great, and I don’t think that can happen with an origin story.

      • Super8grain

        To create a compelling story, they need to build a strong character and for that they must investigate his motivations, fears, inner conflicts, etc. Show us what he’s gone through and the purpose that pushes him to become who he becomes. Who he was before becoming who he became.

        An origin story’s purpose is not to solely give us information.

        What you said in parts of your post is spot on. “Superman is a stale character in the minds’ of the general public, he’s often viewed as outdated and one dimensional [...] what the character really needs is something deeply personal and character driven, something to really flesh out who Superman is and cast him in a light that people aren’t expecting.”

        You practically described word for word what an origin story is all about!!!
        Many people had no interest in James Bond or Star Trek, but Casino Royale and the new Trek film completely changed that. They did that by creating a new, strong structure and by re-exploring who the characters are.

        Throwing Superman in there just like that will not create the backbone and emotional involvement needed to craft truly compelling and epic films.

        Making a story work is not about knowledge. It’s about making us go through what a character feels, thinks and lives. It’s about letting us in their inner world. The inner world of Superman is ultimately linked to his alien roots and humain upbringing.

        The simple concept of him being “the last son” of his planet is psychologically fascinating. He is alone. He can never be himself. Kent is goof and “S” is a symbol, with no weaknesses or vulnerability. I hope they explore that. He also has two fathers quite different from one another. This must create interesting conflict in him.
        To explore all that and more, you must take the time to tell his whole story.

      • Alex

        This is an origin story guys. Just not your baby to pipsquek to emo to gen xer to Superman origin story.

        Clark Kent is a badass war journalist, who can’t fly yet, who comes up against a force which forces him to push his powers to the limit and which makes him decide to become Superman.

        In this origin story Clark Kent is not a pussy, but a brave, empathetic man, what pushes him past this to become even more to become ‘Superman’ is what the film will be about.

        So Clark Kent will be a mixture of the man with no name and John Mclane, hence audiences will already like him. The film will be about how he goes to the next level.

        “The inner world of Superman is ultimately linked to his alien roots and humain upbringing.”
        That is bullshit. Clark Kent’s choice to become Superman is not necessarily linked to his past, that means he was destined to become Superman, destined to become a hero. Nothing could be more inhumane.

        Clark Kent made a CHOICE to become Superman, A SYMBOL and the embodiment of the best in him. It’s not because his krypton dad or his human parents told him. He’s a GROWN MAN, independent and he lives his own life, makes his own choices and creates his own destiny.

        Seems to me Snyder is finally pushing Superman away from arrested adolescence and making him a MAN fit to bear the term ‘MAN OF STEEL’.

      • SuperBat

        Exactly!

        We need to see SuperMAN for once onscreen and not some 25 year old actor who is SuperBOY who thinks he can be SuperMAN but he can’t! LOL

      • MrRich316

        If you take the words “badass” and “war” out of your second sentence you just described Smallville’s whole premise.

      • MrRich316

        Sorry,just noticed its actually the third sentence.

      • Super8grain

        “That is bullshit”
        ?? His alien roots is at the core of his character. If you don’t get this you don’t understand Superman.
        How would you feel if you were the last of your kin? Without a doubt this affects who he is profoundly, and his choices, motivations, emotions, ….

      • Alex

        What I’m saying is that’s a mistake. It represents adolescence where a person is searching for a destiny. Quite understandable for a comic character since young people read them, but the film will be for adults.

        The new Superman will need to make his own destiny, make his own choices, live his own life. Just like we all do, unless of course we believe in a higher power. (His krypton origin is essentially a divine origin similar to peoples belief in god having a plan for them)

      • Super8grain

        Yes, kudos for him making his own choices. It’s essential. No “it was inevitable” crap.
        But the psychological effects of his Krypton origin should also be explored and play a role in his inner conflicts and choice. Again, he is the last of his kind, alone in a world where no one will probably never fully understand him.

      • Alex

        But he’s human, the only thing that separates him from other humans is his physical powers.

        Or are you saying that because he’s Kryptonian he’s better psychologically than a normal human? If that’s the case then he is a born hero and never had a choice to do anything. It would literally mean he was a son of god. That’s an adolescent fantasy, that we come from secret nobler origins and thus we are better than other people. That our parents aren’t our ‘real’ parents.

      • Super8grain

        I’m not saying “he’s better”. (!?!) I’m saying he’s deeply affected psychologically being the last if his kin, having been adopted and feeling that he is truly alone for the reasons mentioned before.
        Some people who were adopted spend years in therapy. I could not imagine what it would be like to have the burden of being the last of your race.

      • IllusionOfLife

        You bring up some really good points there, but I still feel that the best thing for the character would be to explore an aspect of his life that’s not the origin story. I think the reason that Casino Royale and Star Trek worked so well as origin stories is similar to Batman Begins, it’s something we hadn’t seen before; not other Bond movie had been an origin story, and there had never been a Star Trek film devoted to the origin of the crew of the Enterprise.

        I think at this point it’s best to agree to disagree. Like I said, you bring up some really valid points, but I still stand by my convictions that the origin story has been said and done and is unnecessary for the new film.

      • IllusionOfLife

        You bring up some really good points there, but I still feel that the best thing for the character would be to explore an aspect of his life that’s not the origin story. I think the reason that Casino Royale and Star Trek worked so well as origin stories is similar to Batman Begins, it’s something we hadn’t seen before; not other Bond movie had been an origin story, and there had never been a Star Trek film devoted to the origin of the crew of the Enterprise.

        I think at this point it’s best to agree to disagree. Like I said, you bring up some really valid points, but I still stand by my convictions that the origin story has been said and done and is unnecessary for the new film.

      • Alex

        Casino Royale is not a origin story it’s just a reboot. James Bond is already James Bond, they don’t show his orphan days dreaming of serving his country. He’s already a spy and assassin and at the start of the film they give him his double O status, his license to kill.

        Star Trek was a fun movie, but it’s still pathetic. Shallow, pretentious, nonsensical, crappy action. A harmless popcorn film for the masses. It is not worthy of being emulated by a Superman film, which needs to be more than your average popcorn film.

      • Super8grain

        So I assume you’re a Trekkie, or a Trekker then? Perhaps a little too attached to the prior incarnations?

      • Alex

        Ah no, I don’t care about Star Trek (although I liked wrath of Khan, who didn’t?), neither too much about Donner’s Superman. The Superman I grew up with was ‘Loise and Clark’, which emphasized the human, and made Clark Kent your average guy trying to be a better man.

        I was just calling Star Trek for what it is, a mediocre film. It was a great reboot, but doesn’t change the fact it was a popcorn film, akin to Transformers. (only with crappy action scenes)

      • Super8grain

        I think JJ and his team did a phenomenal job. For me the new ST brings back the spirit of older and charming adventure movies like Indiana Jones.
        I should so not be compared to Transformers! Transformers is just an empty package with no heart and that makes people sick in their soul. Star Trek uplifts and makes you dream.

        It’s a popcorn film, but one that excels at that. We need those in the world. Only a handful of them are any good.
        But oh well… you have your opinion.

      • Super8grain

        Yes, let’s agree to disagree. I also liked your reasoning which you expressed clearly and soundly. I like this. :)

      • Super8grain

        Well said my friend!

      • MrRich316

        I completely disagree with the premise that Smallville has a “cult”following. That program has been on network television for a decade. Firefly,Farscape,and BSG have cult followings (not that that is a bad thing). To say that showing pieces of young Clark’s life isn’t rehashing his origin just means the Singer missed the mark for you because that’s exactly what it did for me. And for the last idea that some brand new audience exists for Superman is absurd. Superman is a WORLDWIDE ICON. You can wear a Superman shirt,hat,jersey anywhere in the world and people recognize the symbol. What people won’t recognize is some boring,relationship oriented, more Clark Kent less Superman movie…Oh wait, yes they will, they already got that from Bryan Singer and it was not a success.

      • MrRich316

        You can’t seriously think that because Superman’s origin was in a thirty year old movie erases the fact that for the last decade Smallville has been telling the “new ” origin of Superman. I have no idea what they are planning for this film. I don’t know if they really know. I do know most fans of Superman films love the Donner films,so if you are going to come close to doing an origin story it had better be fantastic. I would love to see Snyder cut loose with some huge action scenes and epic battles. I don’t think(from what I’ve read) that this Superman film is going to be action centered,and since for ten television seasons all I’ve seen is the angsty,whiny build up to Smallville’s climax of having Clark Kent finally become Superman I think this movie sounds like an epic fail. If Smallville fans aren’t going to see anything new( and those people are the demographic for this film) then they will bail out. And who can blame them? Same holds true for fans of the comic book/animated series/video games(looking at you DCU fans).Since the original films Superman fans have gotten Lois & Clark,Smallville and Superman Returns all of which were more about relationships and less about Action. If Warner Bros. want a hit they may want to flip the script and give fans an action film like they have never seen before. That would be an opportunity worth taking.

      • Alex

        You seriously think anyone watched Smallville up to the point where Clark dons the Superman costume? In what year 7?

        Everyone only watched the first 3 seasons max.
        Just look at these Nielson ratings.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallville#Nielsen_rankings

        And that’s my whole point. This film will fix what Smallville failed to do, believably transition Clark Kent into ‘SuperMAN’.

        So in many ways the new film will fit right into where modern audiences are at. They are used to seeing an emo Superman in Superman Returns and a pussyfied Clark Kent in Smallville.

        This film will fast forward ten/fifteen years, when Clark is a grown man who’s BADASS and the circumstance that arise which pushes him to become Superman. It will be for adults not teenagers and misty eyed Donner fans (who were teens when they saw the film)

    • Alex

      I think people are starting to figure out that young Superman was a pussy, just like Batman, hence not worthy of a feature film.

  • http://twitter.com/grapenutsrbt Jim Goff

    YES!

  • InfiniteMonkey

    Its bullshit. Someone is smoking crack…check that, they’re all smoking crack! LOLzzzzzzzz!

  • SuperKnight

    Love it if Hamm is cast! He has the leading man charisma and screen presence needed for Superman. All he would need to do is bulk up and shape up. Thats the easy part.

    Remember, WB’s will lose Superman rights in 2013, unless they settle with the Siegals.

    This Superman film will basically be a one shot. Afther this Nolan produced and Snyder directed Supes film, we probably won’t be seeing Superman again in a big live action film until the Justice League movie around 2015 or 2016….IF that!

    Jon Hamm as SuperMAN FTW!

    • Jonathan

      Please enlighten me because I seem to not understand whether the consensus is that due to legal issues with the siegels, wb only has until 2013 to make a film with Superman? After that, they have NO right? regardless of anything elsea?

      • JoJo

        Superknights wrong, Wb has until 2013 to make a Superman movie or the rights goes to the Siegel and Schuster.If the manage to get MOS out by then than they retain the rights.

        the whole thing is quite stupid though because siegel and schuster estate can only retain the rights to what siegel and schuster originally did.That’s means a flightless,no heat vision, no lex,jimmy or other supporting character and Sups rogue gallery and the daily planet.Anything DC created after the heir left still beling to them.

      • man of steal!

        Regardless…..there won’t be a sequel for this Man Of Steel film…..and casting younger just for the sake of making sequels would be stupidity anyway.

        Look at Craig as Bond, Jackman as Wolverine and Downey Jr as Ironman AND Sherlock.

        Hamm would work just fine as Superman me thinks.

      • jonathan

        you have yet to explain the core of your argument. Please explain it better so that I understand the difference between what you claim and what JoJO claims.

        WHY exactly won’t there be a sequal to man of steel? What I understnad is, IF, and only IF, WB fails to have a superman movie in production by 2011, the rights go back to siegel and schuster. HOWEVER, IF WB DOES put a movie into production by 2011, then WB KEEPS the rights, and thus a sequel will be made by WB. This whole certaintly you have with “there won’t be a sequel regardless” needs futher explanation please.
        Thanks

      • Dknight 007

        The rights go back to the Siegal/Shuster estate regardless in 2013 and there will be an ugly legal battle between them and the WB, from what I understand.

      • jonathan

        “regardless?”. I think that is incorrect.

      • Chevguy83

        Maybe the rights reverting to Siegel and Schuster would be a blessing in disguise.

      • Chevguy83

        Maybe the rights reverting to Siegel and Schuster would be a blessing in disguise.

      • SuperBat

        The courts said that WB’s needed to have a Supes film in pre production by 2011 or they can’t make a film, because the rights will go to the Siegal estate.

        Unless there is no settlement between WB’s and Siegals (most likely after this Nolan produced and Snyder directed Supes film does well and makes $$$) then WB’s will lose the rights competely in 2013. After this film is released during the Holidays 2012….there will be no Superman sequels within a year or two after this film.

      • ClarkKentFannn

        I’m sorry but you are wrong…

        The WB will ONLY loose the rights to the Superman franchise IF THEY DO NOT PRODUCE A FILM to completion by 2013. If they release the film by the deadline, they retain the rights to Superman and can make as many sequels as they desire.

        Seems to me if you are gonna run your mouth about something, you should at least know what you are talking about. I have a feeling that the only reason you are pushing this “losing the rights” bullcrap is you think it adds weight to the argument that Jon Hamm should play Superman.

      • Dknight 007

        It looks like you are mistaken.

        We’re getting a Superman film in Dec. 2012, just in time before the copyright reverts to the Shuster Estate in 2013.

        And don’t underestimate the legal battle that is coming. It will be very ugly, and likely last a very, very long time. Dark Knight is right in that we might not see a Superman movie for a while, and it’s possible Superman will go dark for some time beginning in 2013, minus the merchandise already available and produced while the WB had the license.

        So yeah, this film is a standalone and while sequels are always fun to talk about, the fact is that we should be more worried about getting one awesome, truly exciting Superman film.

        I’m always baffled by the number of people who yap about sequels when we haven’t even gotten ONE good movie. A lot of things have to go right for sequels to happen, and just about everything on the wrong side for Superman right now. We need to get ONE good — no, great movie, THEN we can talk A sequel (and well, only if the WB ponys up a whole bunch of cash to the Shuster Estate, which it probably won’t want to do, and since the WB owns so many derivative rights, neither side would be able to do much of anything until an agreement is reached).

      • MrRich316

        I kind of disagree with the idea that ther won’t be a sequel (assuming the film does well). The rights to the character do go back to the creator’s estate, but that doesn’t mean WB won’t license the character from them for the next 50-60 years. I can’t see WB re-vamping everything they do because they have to pull the “S” off of their products. This is about how much the Siegle and Schuster Estates will take to lease Superman back to WB. The best thing the studio could do is put out a flop and tank the value of the character. Tie up the rights for a lower price then do what they want later. Its not like Superman fans won’t pay to see a bad Superman film. They will just bitch and argue about how bad it was .

      • SuperBat

        The courts said that WB’s needed to have a Supes film in pre production by 2011 or they can’t make a film, because the rights will go to the Siegal estate.

        Unless there is no settlement between WB’s and Siegals (most likely after this Nolan produced and Snyder directed Supes film does well and makes $$$) then WB’s will lose the rights competely in 2013. After this film is released during the Holidays 2012….there will be no Superman sequels within a year or two after this film.

    • Jonathan

      Please enlighten me because I seem to not understand whether the consensus is that due to legal issues with the siegels, wb only has until 2013 to make a film with Superman? After that, they have NO right? regardless of anything elsea?

    • FincherFan

      Hey! You posted the same exact comment verbatim on CinemaBlend. Double poster!!!! :P

  • GCM44

    Brandon Routh vs. Brainiac

  • Vpilutis

    AND for what purpose have an older man?

  • DKnight007

    If Keaton can play a good Batman in his late 30′s in Batman 1989, and if Hugh Jackman is still playing Wolverine at 42, and if Daniel Craig can play a kick ass Bond at 42 AND if Downey Jr can play a solid Tony Stark in IronMan at 45…..then Hamm can certainly bulk up and shape up at 39 to play SuperMAN!

    Jon Hamm as SuperMAN FTW!

  • Super8grain

    This is not confusing. Superman is a full grown man. He spends years at his Fortress of Solitude after leaving Smallville. (12 years in the 1978 Film).

    One of the reasons the casting didn’t work with Routh was because he looks like a boy. A young man.
    PLUS he was gone supposedly six years from Earth in that film. He’s supposed to be at least 36-7 in Returns.

    This is great news.
    For one I HOPE they will do an origin story. There is so much stuff to dig into Superman’s origin and mythology. They can’t just drop a character like that in a film with action scenes and expect a good film. We need context and motivations. They need to take their time.
    I hope they do something a la Batman Begins.

    • Chevguy83

      You are correct. Clark Kent disappeared after reaching adulthood, and reappeared in his thirties, finding a job at the Daily Bugle. The time away from others allowed him to learn about his origins, powers, and his obligations to his host planet.

      • Barryh

        Daily PLANET! Bugle is Spidey.

      • Chevguy83

        Damn. So embarrassed. :{

    • Chevguy83

      Not to mention, the actress portraying Louis Lane looked like she was just out of High School.

      • Super8grain

        yes! Playing a famous and accomplished journalist with a 6 years old boy and a Pulitzer.

    • MrRich316

      Can someone(at WB) send Super8grain the complete Smallville collection. Then He(?) can have all the Superman Begins that he wants.(Not trying to be rude, your post name is not gender specific).

      • Super8grain

        Again this has nothing to do with it. One could also read all the comics, watch all the animated series, etc. They’re doing a new adaptation, starting from ground up. The story will be, hopefully, extremely different from what we’ve seen before.

        Crafting a new vision, creating a new world can exists solely within the film’s dimension. A world where Tom Welling will never exist.
        Also what they’re doing will have nothing to do with A LOT of what was done in Smallville. So you can’t make any parallels between the two. They are 100% independent. And Nolan wants his Superman to have nothing in common to that TV show he probably dislikes.

        also WaltGroverTheFanboy says some great things on page 1.

  • Javanclark

    Flame away readers Flame away.

    Alec Baldwin.

    Discuss.

    • Javanclark

      (after some work in the gym of course)

  • Gandalf1of9

    My vote is for Sam Worthington to play the man of steel!

    • Cellobello

      I like Mr. Worthington. He’s a likeable everyman, but a good leading action hero too… but, NO for superman. Just no.

  • terk

    Jon Hamm 4 superman!

  • Superheldclark

    it will have both. older superman IS aging, and this alex ross typ superman, will look back at his early days – or there will be two timelines running paralell to fight one common threat!!! mark my words!!!

  • Zooeys24

    I can’t believe i’m posting. I never do these. That said… it’s Superman, and I feel I have something to offer on the matter. The character’s part of our collective creative history, and some amount of respect should be paid to that.

    First, Christopher Reeve was iconic in that role, and I don’t believe that anyone following in that role should be ashamed to inhabit the role in a similar fashion. Brandon Routh did a fantastic job as Clark Kent AND as Superman, paying homage to Reeve, putting his own stamp on it, and thereby establishing himself in that role. I would LOVE to see him continue on with that character and see where it goes. He is in fact now 5 years older, and physically, and as an actor he’s definitely matured. Not that he wasn’t ready for the part before, but he certainly can bring more weight to the role this time around (again, not complaining about the last time around).

    There’s also the added benefit that you CAN do older story lines in the coming years. We don’t need a young Supes, then an “Older” one, to tell different stories. How about telling a continuous story? We’ll stick with it as long as it’s good, and aging with the character can be a GOOD thing (see Connery in Never Say Never Again).

    Second, I understand and appreciate why a lot of people are not enthusiastic about that last installment, but for the very same reasons it’s disliked, is why I believe it defined itself as what a Superman movie should be.

    Supes is NOT “X-MEN” (does no one remember Logan’s NOT a pin-up model and supposed to be the shorty of the team while Cyclops is the “alpha”??), with things exploding everywhere in sensory overload rapidity. Nor is he “Spider-Man” (whose film history essentially began with Tobey Maguire), where everyone is young, pretty, and supposed to be 19 years old, and in essence more of a “comic book” character.

    Bryan Singer created a “Golden Age” world, where the classic etymology met with contemporary mores. Basically….. it was awesome! It was a story, a Superman movie, a character piece, visually stunning, and lest everyone forget, PROFITABLE!!

    Third, Hollywood exec’s should STOP TRYING TO REINVENT OUR HEROES every few years, thinking we’d rather see a “reboot” than a more cohesive lineage. Spider-Man 3 is barely gone from the theaters (ok, a couple years.. btu you get my point), and already the powers that be are “retooling”. Was it unsuccessful before? Was it not profitable? Is retooling going to make it better?!? Take a cue from James Bond.. he only reinvented himself just recently, which is fair after almost 40 years, and with multiple actor changes.

    Trying to “retool” every few years doesn’t make a film franchise better, it disjoints the ticket buyers who came to see a certain actor in that role and who appreciate the continuity of story. It CERTAINLY doesn’t guarantee a better script, or have we forgotten the lessons of the Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney debacle? Each fantastic actors in their own rights (and that role still belongs to Keaton in my book… no disrespect to Bale who also does an amazing job in that role), but HOLY CRAP did Hollywood “F” that up.

    Here’s what my opinion boils down to. Keep Routh. DEVELOP what you started (which was actually pretty great in my book and a lot of critics as well!), just make sure you hand it to people with the right credentials to guide that character and vision (i.e. Nolan for Batman, Greengrass for Bourne…), and really most importantly, a script and casting that doesn’t suck (Schwarzenegger as Dr. Freeze? …… really???).

    Snyder.. give us continuity. Give us something to look forward to, with someone we’ve come to recognize in those red and blue’s. You don’t need a different actor to make the movie successful (Routh did almost $400 mill at the box office, not to mention the $100 mill+ in the rental/video market), you just need to deliver a good product.

    You know.. you build it, we’ll come.

    • Super8grain

      I never post either. :) But Superman is my childhood hero…
      Returns is just a mess of a story. Stuck between the past and the present. It’s so poorly written. It’s not awful bad like, say, Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich films, but it just misses the mark on so many points.

      They create a premise that doesn’t even play a role in the actual film, they have a protagonist who just has no depth and no meaningful conflicts or struggle, they rehash old dialogs and storylines, awful casting, no excitement, sense of wonder, etc, etc… Even Spacey – a great actor – doesn’t work as Luthor. Above all, the story is just weak.

      You’re a Superman fan? Well let’s just pray Snyder can surprise all of us and make the more profound films of his life.

    • Super8grain

      I never post either. :) But Superman is my childhood hero…
      Returns is just a mess of a story. Stuck between the past and the present. It’s so poorly written. It’s not awful bad like, say, Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich films, but it just misses the mark on so many points.

      They create a premise that doesn’t even play a role in the actual film, they have a protagonist who just has no depth and no meaningful conflicts or struggle, they rehash old dialogs and storylines, awful casting, no excitement, sense of wonder, etc, etc… Even Spacey – a great actor – doesn’t work as Luthor. Above all, the story is just weak.

      You’re a Superman fan? Well let’s just pray Snyder can surprise all of us and make the more profound films of his life.

    • Rpintoro

      Fuck Routh

    • Chevguy83

      All true, except for the lame interpretation of Lex Luthor.

    • Chevguy83

      All true, except for the lame interpretation of Lex Luthor.

  • Zooeys24

    I can’t believe i’m posting. I never do these. That said… it’s Superman, and I feel I have something to offer on the matter. The character’s part of our collective creative history, and some amount of respect should be paid to that.

    First, Christopher Reeve was iconic in that role, and I don’t believe that anyone following in that role should be ashamed to inhabit the role in a similar fashion. Brandon Routh did a fantastic job as Clark Kent AND as Superman, paying homage to Reeve, putting his own stamp on it, and thereby establishing himself in that role. I would LOVE to see him continue on with that character and see where it goes. He is in fact now 5 years older, and physically, and as an actor he’s definitely matured. Not that he wasn’t ready for the part before, but he certainly can bring more weight to the role this time around (again, not complaining about the last time around).

    There’s also the added benefit that you CAN do older story lines in the coming years. We don’t need a young Supes, then an “Older” one, to tell different stories. How about telling a continuous story? We’ll stick with it as long as it’s good, and aging with the character can be a GOOD thing (see Connery in Never Say Never Again).

    Second, I understand and appreciate why a lot of people are not enthusiastic about that last installment, but for the very same reasons it’s disliked, is why I believe it defined itself as what a Superman movie should be.

    Supes is NOT “X-MEN” (does no one remember Logan’s NOT a pin-up model and supposed to be the shorty of the team while Cyclops is the “alpha”??), with things exploding everywhere in sensory overload rapidity. Nor is he “Spider-Man” (whose film history essentially began with Tobey Maguire), where everyone is young, pretty, and supposed to be 19 years old, and in essence more of a “comic book” character.

    Bryan Singer created a “Golden Age” world, where the classic etymology met with contemporary mores. Basically….. it was awesome! It was a story, a Superman movie, a character piece, visually stunning, and lest everyone forget, PROFITABLE!!

    Third, Hollywood exec’s should STOP TRYING TO REINVENT OUR HEROES every few years, thinking we’d rather see a “reboot” than a more cohesive lineage. Spider-Man 3 is barely gone from the theaters (ok, a couple years.. btu you get my point), and already the powers that be are “retooling”. Was it unsuccessful before? Was it not profitable? Is retooling going to make it better?!? Take a cue from James Bond.. he only reinvented himself just recently, which is fair after almost 40 years, and with multiple actor changes.

    Trying to “retool” every few years doesn’t make a film franchise better, it disjoints the ticket buyers who came to see a certain actor in that role and who appreciate the continuity of story. It CERTAINLY doesn’t guarantee a better script, or have we forgotten the lessons of the Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney debacle? Each fantastic actors in their own rights (and that role still belongs to Keaton in my book… no disrespect to Bale who also does an amazing job in that role), but HOLY CRAP did Hollywood “F” that up.

    Here’s what my opinion boils down to. Keep Routh. DEVELOP what you started (which was actually pretty great in my book and a lot of critics as well!), just make sure you hand it to people with the right credentials to guide that character and vision (i.e. Nolan for Batman, Greengrass for Bourne…), and really most importantly, a script and casting that doesn’t suck (Schwarzenegger as Dr. Freeze? …… really???).

    Snyder.. give us continuity. Give us something to look forward to, with someone we’ve come to recognize in those red and blue’s. You don’t need a different actor to make the movie successful (Routh did almost $400 mill at the box office, not to mention the $100 mill+ in the rental/video market), you just need to deliver a good product.

    You know.. you build it, we’ll come.

  • Zooeys24

    P.S. Chevguy83…. Yes, Bosworth did look too pubescent to play Lois Lane. Not her fault, but HORRIBLE casting on their part.

    Super8grain, it was established awhile ago in the comics (sometime around “CRISIS” I believe), that as an adult Superman’s age slowed somewhat and outlived an old Lois while still looking middle aged. Looking 26..28ish is pretty ok. HE is after all, an alien. and as we all know aliens age slower…. :)

    • Super8grain

      Yes but Superman is a MAN. He looks like a full grown man, full of testosterone and all : )
      Routh does not.

      I don’t care if the actor if 26 or 39. He must look like a full grown man.
      Reeve was like what 25 when they shot the first film. But he looked right.

  • The Truth

    It obvious now what their options or should i say option is… Given the fact of a must have 2012 deadline, confirmed search of a middle age actor, and someone who can take on the role with the reassurance that it can be done given the timeline, gravitas of the film, and someone who can for sure done the red cape. TOM WELLING. Its the only obvious decesion. He has the most experience for the role than anyone else on the face of the planet, he has the perfect look for it, is of the right age, and most deserving. they need to focus on the film itself without worrying if the actor can do the role. Tom Welling does just that. And by the way he was and is the only one that has been officially recognized by the late CHRISTOPHER REEVE. I know Tom Welling is the one for this role and I know im not the only one…

    p.s. HE’S ALREADY BEEN WORKING WITH WARNER BROTHERS FOR 12 YEARS BY THE END OF SEASON 10 OF SMALLVILLE.

  • The Truth

    It obvious now what their options or should i say option is… Given the fact of a must have 2012 deadline, confirmed search of a middle age actor, and someone who can take on the role with the reassurance that it can be done given the timeline, gravitas of the film, and someone who can for sure done the red cape. TOM WELLING. Its the only obvious decesion. He has the most experience for the role than anyone else on the face of the planet, he has the perfect look for it, is of the right age, and most deserving. they need to focus on the film itself without worrying if the actor can do the role. Tom Welling does just that. And by the way he was and is the only one that has been officially recognized by the late CHRISTOPHER REEVE. I know Tom Welling is the one for this role and I know im not the only one…

    p.s. HE’S ALREADY BEEN WORKING WITH WARNER BROTHERS FOR 12 YEARS BY THE END OF SEASON 10 OF SMALLVILLE.

    • Chevguy83

      I second that. Tom Welling is perfect and there is already a built in audience from the show. Michael Rosenbaum must be in the movie as well.

  • Anonymous

    So, you get an older actor & if this first one makes big box offfice, the guy will be 50 by the 3rd one? How about Ernie Borgnine?

  • Anonymous

    So, you get an older actor & if this first one makes big box offfice, the guy will be 50 by the 3rd one? How about Ernie Borgnine?

  • Jayz

    But casting an old aged guy for a fresh Superman movie has disaster written all over it. Haven’t WB/DC learned their lesson from Bryan Singer’s expensive homage to the old era movies.
    Why the audiences need to be always reminded again and again that Superman is some outdated old aged superhero which can only appeal to the middle-old generation and not to the young blood. Remember the majority of superhero audience is young fresh blood who pays for the ticket and not middle-old aged guys. Jon Hamm can only appeal to the Christopher Reeve era fans but not to the millions of young movie audiences like me. You bet on my bottom dollar this movie will fail with an old looking Superman flying with red briefs among young modern generation. Iron Man wears a mask so it’s not a problem him being played by an aged looking guy as his face is covered all the time when in action.
    If WB/ DC want to modernize Superman, they have to target the young movie going audiences like me with this fresh start and Jon Hamm doesn’t fits the bill.
    Jon Hamm himself came out to say that he’s too old for playing Superman. And also according to Superman mythos, Superman is an alien and he doesn’t ages like humans. Do we have to suffer with an old looking Superman. Bring Armie Hammer or some young fresh blood.

    • SuperKnight

      Targeting the young and naive movie going audience is STUPIDITY actually.

      They are going to make an EPIC, SOPHISTACATED, VISUALLY STUNNING ACTION FILM!

      Targeting the teens and barely 21 year olds….is stupid. Go watch Smallville or the lame Transformer films!

      We need to see SuperMAN onscreen….not some pretty boy acting like SuperBOY! LOL

  • Pingback: ¿Un Superman más madurito? | Estrenos de cine, críticas, películas, posters, tráilers, rumores... | cinefilo.es

  • Supreme Dude

    Tom Welling is the Greatest Superman Ever! hes also 33 and is Superman. Tom is the best. A more perfect Superman or Clark has never existed,
    If they even think of casting anyone else they are the Dumbest Morons in the world, I would say even bordering on mental retardation. there is a reason why Smallville lasted for 10 Seasons! and yes it has had good writeing. Some of the lines are great.
    But comon Tom is the perfect age to be a leading man Superhero. The timeing is perfect for Tom Welling is this on purpose? have they always been waiting for his Smallville to be finished before moveing ahead with another Superman film? Tom Welling has the charisma of an A-list Mega Star. I think its gonna come down to money will they pay Tom what he’s worth? cause if they pic anyone else its because they are being tight wads. I will not spend a cent on this film ever unless they cast Tom Welling and none of my Bro’s will either. So give Tom his rightful place in the Universe and watch the $$$ roll in

  • Supreme Dude

    Tom Welling is the Greatest Superman Ever! hes also 33 and is Superman. Tom is the best. A more perfect Superman or Clark has never existed,
    If they even think of casting anyone else they are the Dumbest Morons in the world, I would say even bordering on mental retardation. there is a reason why Smallville lasted for 10 Seasons! and yes it has had good writeing. Some of the lines are great.
    But comon Tom is the perfect age to be a leading man Superhero. The timeing is perfect for Tom Welling is this on purpose? have they always been waiting for his Smallville to be finished before moveing ahead with another Superman film? Tom Welling has the charisma of an A-list Mega Star. I think its gonna come down to money will they pay Tom what he’s worth? cause if they pic anyone else its because they are being tight wads. I will not spend a cent on this film ever unless they cast Tom Welling and none of my Bro’s will either. So give Tom his rightful place in the Universe and watch the $$$ roll in

    • Awesome Guy

      I agree Supreme Dude Tom Welling is the only choice

      • the Ultimate Champion

        Yes pick Tom Welling

      • the Ultimate Champion

        Yes pick Tom Welling

    • Awesome Guy

      I agree Supreme Dude Tom Welling is the only choice

    • Rpintoro

      Tom Welling….hell yeah. WB are so fucking ….? Morons!!!

    • sense11

      What part of reboot don’t you people understand. What part of no connection to any other superman anything don’t you understand. Its never going to happen.

      Get over it. You had your 10 years of Smallville, cant you just be happy with that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OVQZ7O3Y667AAWWGI2OZYDRAKU Doug

    Personally, I liked most of Superman Returns — except for Lois Lane, who should
    have been an actress about 10 years older, for the story that was being told. I
    liked the contemplative story being told rather than all action, slam bam socko.
    A comic book movie in 1979 had to have a certain feel, largely derived from the
    1960′s Batman series. In short, it was hokey. Comics, and comic movies by
    extension, were for children and or “just plain fun”. The next three movies
    continued in that vein.

    Only in recent years have we seen Superhero movies that are like the Heroes of
    ancient Greece and other civilizations. I mean heroes that are serious dramatic
    characters that through their extraordinary nature try to tell very human and
    emotionally real stories.

    Without reservation, I liked Christopher Reeve in the role. He was serious,
    sincere, and honest as an actor, and within the character. But major aspects of
    the first 4 films were even then (and very dated now IMO), disrespectful of the
    Superman character, and the supporting roles.

    #1 Essentially, everything and everyone but Reeves as Superman played for laughs (including the Clark Kent identity), before and even to the point of exclusion of real drama (empathy, pathos, ethos).

    #2 Only one real villain. Lex Luthor, played as a schtick land-grabbing Robber
    Baron that merely THINKS himself smarter than everyone else (and in EVERY
    movie).

    The Krypton villains hardly count in my opinion. They only provided the big
    muscle threat that Lex Luthor could not, and in fact he is the bigger threat
    even in S2. They were vain to point of idiocy, unlike how the characters should
    have been portayed. The three of them nearly destroyed Krypton society, and very
    nearly the planet, yet are duped using KRYPTON technology into becoming
    completely impotent as villains. Remember that Zod was supposed to be a General,
    a warrior, a leader; not just a arrogant stupid psychopath.

    Superman should have more than one villain throughout however many movies may
    ever get made, and the ones he does have shouldn’t be overused and misplayed.
    Give me just ONE damn Superman movie WITHOUT Luthor, or I won’t be seeing the
    next film. Yes, I really mean that. I might relent in 5 or 6 years, some day
    when I am bored with nothing else to watch. But I won’t go looking for it, if 6
    out of 6 Superman movies made end up featuring the same villain.

    #3 But discussing Luthor; in comics and TV shows there have essentially been 2
    *types* of Luthors, First, an amoral millionaire (read billionaire, for
    inflation) businessman that would do anything for profit and power. Second, a
    mad genius scientist who *also* had financial resources to do pretty much
    whatever he wanted. Lex Luthor was reinvented in the comic books AFAIR in the
    early 70s.

    Gene Hackman (a great actor given a crap role) however, came off as more an
    egotistical conman / funny man to Superman’s straight man act. It was a COMEDY
    role. Superman stands for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” sincerely, not
    winking at the camera. He is a grown man with “Boy Scout” Ideals. Superman
    shouldn’t become a “Dark” character, like Batman. But his villains SHOULD be
    dark. They are villains, super-villains, and in some cases, truly evil. They
    should be portrayed as such, and Superman maintains his ideals in *spite* of the
    danger they represent, and his own very human nature to want to sometimes deal
    with them on their own level.

    Here is where I completely disagree with many opinions of Superman Returns:

    #1 Spacey as Lex Luthor. He played Lex *exactly* as I have always envisioned Lex
    to work best — not played for laughs as a comic relief, but: bat-shit insane (but logical),
    actually malevolent instead of money-grubbing and pissy-moany, and jealous of
    Superman for his physically superior abilities (and eventually revealed mental
    abilities/knowledge/science provided by the Krypton Fortress). Spacey played
    Luthor as a true sociopath. I would argue that while in Superman Returns, Superman
    did NOT get a reboot, Luthor did. (So did Lois Lane, but with the wrong actress in the role).

    #2 I also don’t think Superman Returns was a weak story. It paid homage and
    maintained the continuity of events of the first 3 or 4 films. Personally, I try
    to forget S4 was ever made. It [SR] didn’t just say forget those stories –
    saying they never happened — and we are starting over with a fresh slate. We
    don’t need series film characters getting reboots every 3 or 4 films just for
    the hell of it. We only need reboots when the characters and/or film series have
    been torpedoed by bad writing/direction/producing as happened with Batman.

    Because Superman has been off the big screen for over 20 years, and times and
    tastes have been changing (and special effects too), Singer went for a
    contemplative, thoughtful character study for story, that wasn’t Superman
    catching something or smashing something every 10 minutes. He was refining the
    Superman Universe, many or even all the supporting characters while maintaining
    back history of the other films. I *fully* believe he was laying the ground work
    for allowing Superman movies to move forward in time: not just in the Superman
    Universe, but within our own culture. I think his next film would have played
    off this and been much more the action/adventure so many movie-goers wanted. If
    the new creative team KEEP that groundwork and back-story, we’re going to get the adventure, action and fun, fulfilling story we all want.

    • Alex

      Well your wrong about Luthor in SR.

      Although it was a reboot he was essentially the comedic relief of the film and his ‘brilliant’ idea (land grab) was really stupid.

      And your wrong about SR. He gave Superman a KID (out of wedlock, which he abandoned for 5 years). Singer made a crap Superman film, end of story. It should be best forgotten and it will be when Snyder’s new film comes out.

  • Giomets154575

    PATRICK WARBURTON !!! LOL

  • Cunt

    I hope this film erases the memory of Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns

  • Kijkjaime

    Jon Hamm all the way

  • SuperBat

    Too bad Tom Welling can’t ACT worth a crap and has zero onscreen charisma!

  • Giomets154575

    Patrick Warburton !!!!!! lol

  • superman always ages

    What are you talking about, Superman doesn’t age? In every Superman comic book, Superman ages. His origin story is almost universal: he is sent to Earth as a child and is raised by his Smallville parents, eventually growing up to be Superman. This is aging, regardless of the fact that it runs “counter to the whole invincibility thing.”

    • Alex

      That is very very true. Superman couldn’t remain human if he was immortal AS WELL as invincible. (that basically makes him a god)

      Hence this version of Superman will address also Clark Kents mortality, as in he will grow old and die too. And tackling ones own mortality is a fundamentally human part of existence.

      • Super8grain

        Why are you stating things here and there as if you know what Nolan and co. are creating?

        I like your idea of Clark living something that pushes him and his powers to the limit, thus becoming Superman. But saying, “the movie will be about…” is kinda weird.

      • Alex

        I’m psychic.

      • Super8grain

        Psychic? Good!!
        Can you then please me if Steven Spielberg will redeem himself with a 5th Indiana Jones worthy of the first 3?

  • Cellobello

    I would love to see JON HAMM AS SUPERMAN. Acting ability, looks, presence. And as others have said, if Robert Downey Jr. can helm a franchise, so can Hamm.

    On a non-fanboy note: You have a protagonist who is more ‘super’ than most superhuman characters. It’d be great to see more of a focus on the fact that Superman is SO very powerful. If semi-naked men in red capes (300) can look like superheroes, certainly The Man of Steel himself should look GOD-LIKE?

    Seeing Brandon Routh pull a boat out of the ocean (or squat on a boat, from what I remember) just didn’t feel as epic as seeing a Spartan shove a spear into someone’s neck. And it shouldn’t be that way.

  • cameron

    im not a fan of superman, i just love to go to the movies.

    God knows, armie hammer is too young, but i dont like the idea of an older actor for superman. im a mature woman, if im going to pay to for superman, i want the whole package, i want beauty, youth, good acting, action,romance, good plot, everything. sorry, i am as excited with an older superman, as most of you would be with an older wonder woman (and by older i mean over 40).

    • Alex

      Well that’s more of a fantasy isn’t it? How is an older woman going to get a man in his twenties?

      Plus I don’t get it, Jon Hamm has practically scores of old and young women drooling over him and he plays a guy in his late thirties. Women find older men attractive, they just find younger men sexually attractive, big difference. Superman isn’t supposed to be a sex object.

      I think they will be emphasizing his youth by displaying his physical strength like never before. That’s after all what attracts women to young men, their physical virility.

  • Jeromemarkgonzales

    KARL URBAN

  • Pingback: Super(Old)man?

Click Here