First, apparently Clint eastwood is even more bad ass than previously thought…and two, we have to start somewhere. I am applauding the fact that they are finally using the source material to choose how these people should look. Hopefully the people working on Superman are taking notes.
I mean, the Abercrombie pretty boy didn’t work too well last time.
[quote]giterdone wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]giterdone wrote:
“If I have a massive heart attack…” {sigh}[/quote]
Well he is 42.
Maybe not heart attacks but how healthy could bulking at such a late age be? [/quote]
I’ll keep you informed. If I stop posting you will know it went terribly wrong.[/quote]
x 2
^ Hey X your office open today? Houston is froze over man it was a fun drive into the office this morning.
I’m starting to go a little bonkers with all the endless threads about actor and their muscles playing superheroes.
I know I’ve contributed to a few of these threads but NO MORE!!!
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Hey X your office open today? Houston is froze over man it was a fun drive into the office this morning. [/quote]
Nope, I’m off today. They called me at 7 and said the roads were too rough. I already knew it because I worked out late last night and drive by 3 wrecks and some of the ramps on freeways were being closed.
I HATE this shit. My car skidded twice last night so I drove home using back roads going 30mph.
I hope its better now because I need to leave.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
First, apparently Clint eastwood is even more bad ass than previously thought…and two, we have to start somewhere. I am applauding the fact that they are finally using the source material to choose how these people should look. Hopefully the people working on Superman are taking notes.
I mean, the Abercrombie pretty boy didn’t work too well last time.[/quote]
I don’t know if that’s fair. Granted, he (Brandon Routh, the kid who played Supes in Superman Returns) should have added more size (the suit had shoulder padding, alas), but he acted well with what was given to him. The script and direction I blame more than the actor or his acting.
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
First, apparently Clint eastwood is even more bad ass than previously thought…and two, we have to start somewhere. I am applauding the fact that they are finally using the source material to choose how these people should look. Hopefully the people working on Superman are taking notes.
I mean, the Abercrombie pretty boy didn’t work too well last time.[/quote]
I don’t know if that’s fair. Granted, he (Brandon Routh, the kid who played Supes in Superman Returns) should have added more size (the suit had shoulder padding, alas), but he acted well with what was given to him. The script and direction I blame more than the actor or his acting.[/quote]
I blame both. His acting was nonexistent. They gave him very few speaking parts. Most of his “acting” was in the form of how he flew (which I do give him credit for being “graceful” enough to pull that off). It isn’t like just about anyone couldn’t have done the same part just as good as he did.
But yeah, more to blame are the casting directors, the writers and the director. I thought Singer knew better than to go back to what worked in 1979. He did X-Men I and then gave us this pile of shit.
That just wasn’t “Superman”…unless the last time you paid attention to the character was in the 70’s.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
lol at butthurt.
You have to admit huge weight swings do take a toll on your body regardless of age.
Especially for the white man whose penis has been known to stop working after the age of 40 (see black history thread)[/quote]
Huge weight swings? 20 extra pounds on a man 6’2 is a “huge weight swing?” Who knew?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
lol at butthurt.
You have to admit huge weight swings do take a toll on your body regardless of age.
Especially for the white man whose penis has been known to stop working after the age of 40 (see black history thread)[/quote]
Huge weight swings? 20 extra pounds on a man 6’2 is a “huge weight swing?” Who knew? [/quote]
What? You mean he’s not getting up to 260 and then cutting back down to a lean 220?
That’s not bulking.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
First, apparently Clint eastwood is even more bad ass than previously thought…and two, we have to start somewhere. I am applauding the fact that they are finally using the source material to choose how these people should look[/quote]
This is the fifth movie outing for Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s trainer’s brief for the earlier movies was to make Logan look like an athlete (especially in his solo movie). They could’ve used the source material way before Darren Aronofsky got involved. Don’t get me wrong, Bryan Singer did a good job with the first two movies, but some elements were the product of a “moviemaking-by-numbers” approach to film-making, such as Logan’s appearance and the love triangle subplot.
It’s far better IMO, for them to get it right the first time by getting in good directors who have vision, imagination and an excellent knowledge of the source material and trust them enough to get on with it and deliver a movie that is both faithful and appeals to a wide audience. On one end of the spectrum, you have Christopher Nolan - he can afford to make changes to the characters that build or improve on the source material because he knows it intimately.
On the other end, you have Mark Steven Johnson screwing up a great character like Ghost Rider, allowing Nic Cage (a supposed ‘fan’) to fuck the character over by letting his hard-on for Elvis influence his performance again (I’m referring to the Ghost Rider ‘finger point of justice’ - which was lifted straight from Presley).
And let’s not forget the champagne glasses full of jellybeans. Cage said he did this to show Blaze’s defiance of Mephistopheles: he had his soul, so he reasoned that Blaze would live as clean a life as possible. Garbage. Being tee-total would be the last thing on his bucket list.
Not only should a movie of Ghost Rider be closer to a horror movie (similar to Blade), but it should be directed by someone who can deliver the period feel of the comics. I’m thinking Tarantino. He has the pedigree after writing From Dusk Til Dawn.
That’s how far off the mark they are sometimes. It goes higher than the producers and directors: Thomas Rothman (head of Fox) continually meddled in creative decisions regarded the X-Men movies. Most of his proposed changes were laughable and based solely on targeting demographic groups which are outside the target audience of the comics.
Avi Arad is another clown with too much control over comic book properties but doesn’t have the slightest clue of how to adapt them in an intelligent and original way.
^ That’s why so many comic book adaptations turn out so badly.
I for one would rather they get it right the first time than leave a trail of failed re-boots behind them. Which is what’s happening. Re-boots happen because they don’t listen to what the public want to see. No. They make the movie first then adjust accordingly if it bombs or gets a critical mauling.
Apologies for the long post. Studio execs making business decisions instead of artistic ones is a hugely contentious issue for me.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote] Darren said with the last one, ‘Hey you looked great, but you’re so tall that in those long shots you looked kind of like Clint Eastwood, and that’s not Wolverine,’" Jackman says. "He said that Wolverine, in the comics, is powerful, stocky…he’s short and thick.
[/quote]
Has it really taken this long to figure that out? Jackman, although a decent actor, was only cast in the first place because of that love triangle between Logan, Cyclops and Jean Grey in the original X-Men (and he wasn’t even the first choice: that was Dougray Scott, who had to drop out because Mission Impossible: II ran over schedule).
A true-to-the-comic Wolverine wouldn’t work because Jean Grey was unlikely to fall for a hirsute forest man half her height. That’s why he morphed into a more conventional leading man type embodied by Jackman.
If Darren Aronofsky is really that committed to getting Wolverine right, they need to start from scratch (pun intended)…but that’s not going to happen, because most of the movie-going public now see Wolverine as a watered-down romantic lead. All for the sake of cramming in an unnecessary romantic sub-plot.
Thank you Hollywood.[/quote]
You do realize that most of the people who go out and buy the tickets to see the movies aren’t comic book nerds who’ve read “all the issues” of X-Men, Batman, Superman and/or whatever. These movie sell because of their titles’ reminisce in popular culture and the fact they are big/massive budget. 80% of the people that pay the gross don’t give a fuck if Wolverine is 6’3 and not 5’3 or whatever he is in the comics.
Now you have a problem with how they’re doing the movie now but you will end up watching it. Why even bother to complain. Granted, I agree with in the sense that they should have originally cast a more suitable Wolverine but now it’s way to late. Hollywood doesn’t work like that because as we know the actors, their agents and publicists control the industry. The only directors that I can think of that would have the power to completely dismiss the previous actor in a franchise would be Spielberg, Lucas and maybe Cameron.
You certainly would not want Superman looking like he is stage ready either. Superman is meant to blend in. Do you think a flying man that looks like Mr. Universe is going to blend? Granted Routh was thin, but I think he did a pretty good job considering.
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You certainly would not want Superman looking like he is stage ready either. Superman is meant to blend in. Do you think a flying man that looks like Mr. Universe is going to blend? Granted Routh was thin, but I think he did a pretty good job considering. [/quote]
? Why would a flying man looking like anyone blend in? How does being bigger than average keep him from doing his job? In every comic, he is built like a big farm boy in a suit when he’s Clark…not to mention, you are on a bodybuilding website where many of us are bigger than average but have jobs that aren’t stereotyped for “weight lifters”.
I think it is more fucked up that you think bigger muscles would cause someone to not be able to fit in at all when many of us do this all day everyday.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote] Darren said with the last one, ‘Hey you looked great, but you’re so tall that in those long shots you looked kind of like Clint Eastwood, and that’s not Wolverine,’" Jackman says. "He said that Wolverine, in the comics, is powerful, stocky…he’s short and thick.
[/quote]
Has it really taken this long to figure that out? Jackman, although a decent actor, was only cast in the first place because of that love triangle between Logan, Cyclops and Jean Grey in the original X-Men (and he wasn’t even the first choice: that was Dougray Scott, who had to drop out because Mission Impossible: II ran over schedule).
A true-to-the-comic Wolverine wouldn’t work because Jean Grey was unlikely to fall for a hirsute forest man half her height. That’s why he morphed into a more conventional leading man type embodied by Jackman.
If Darren Aronofsky is really that committed to getting Wolverine right, they need to start from scratch (pun intended)…but that’s not going to happen, because most of the movie-going public now see Wolverine as a watered-down romantic lead. All for the sake of cramming in an unnecessary romantic sub-plot.
Thank you Hollywood.[/quote]
You do realize that most of the people who go out and buy the tickets to see the movies aren’t comic book nerds who’ve read “all the issues” of X-Men, Batman, Superman and/or whatever. These movie sell because of their titles’ reminisce in popular culture and the fact they are big/massive budget. 80% of the people that pay the gross don’t give a fuck if Wolverine is 6’3 and not 5’3 or whatever he is in the comics.
Now you have a problem with how they’re doing the movie now but you will end up watching it. Why even bother to complain. Granted, I agree with in the sense that they should have originally cast a more suitable Wolverine but now it’s way to late. Hollywood doesn’t work like that because as we know the actors, their agents and publicists control the industry. The only directors that I can think of that would have the power to completely dismiss the previous actor in a franchise would be Spielberg, Lucas and maybe Cameron.
[/quote]
Why even bother to complain? Movie execs made a series of decisions that created the divide between the comic and the movie to bring in the audience that don’t read comic books. Of course they don’t care if the adaptation is a faithful one or not: they don’t know any different.
Even then, they can sniff out a crappy adaptation of superhero movie. The poor reviews of X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn’t only come from fanboys. What does that tell you? It tells me that the general process for big budget movie production is flawed. It’s not exclusive to the superhero genre. It happens across the board.
I “complain” in this instance because there’s only so far Darren Aronofsky can go to bring Hugh Jackman closer to the comic book character he’s portraying, seeing as accuracy wasn’t a prime concern to begin with. Surely you can understand that…
If Aronofsky doesn’t have the clout to re-cast, why don’t you e-mail him and ask him what’s the point of telling Jackman to bulk up in an effort to bring him closer to Wolverine’s roots?
Also read that big-ass post I just wrote about it before you comment any further on how pointless it is to complain about it… And let me direct you back to what I said to you in The Dark Knight Rises thread about superhero movies only kicking ass if people care.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Why even bother to complain? Movie execs made a series of decisions that created the divide between the comic and the movie to bring in the audience that don’t read comic books. Of course they don’t care if the adaptation is a faithful one or not: they don’t know any different.
Even then, they can sniff out a crappy adaptation of superhero movie. The poor reviews of X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn’t only come from fanboys. What does that tell you? It tells me that the general process for big budget movie production is flawed. It’s not exclusive to the superhero genre. It happens across the board.
I “complain” in this instance because there’s only so far Darren Aronofsky can go to bring Hugh Jackman closer to the comic book character he’s portraying, seeing as accuracy wasn’t a prime concern to begin with. Surely you can understand that…
If Aronofsky doesn’t have the clout to re-cast, why don’t you e-mail him and ask him what’s the point of telling Jackman to bulk up in an effort to bring him closer to Wolverine’s roots?
Also read that big-ass post I just wrote about it before you comment any further on how pointless it is to complain about it… And let me direct you back to what I said to you in The Dark Knight Rises thread about superhero movies only kicking ass if people care.
[/quote]
I think we’re on the same page across the board. I agree that the producers and directors should treat the source material with more respect and adapt around it. You mention X-Men Wolverine, it didn’t those reviews because Jackman didn’t look like the comic book Wolverine. With that said I think we’re mature enough to agree that nailing the personality and attitude of the character is more important than the physical appearance (so long its not TOO far off).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You certainly would not want Superman looking like he is stage ready either. Superman is meant to blend in. Do you think a flying man that looks like Mr. Universe is going to blend? Granted Routh was thin, but I think he did a pretty good job considering. [/quote]
? Why would a flying man looking like anyone blend in? How does being bigger than average keep him from doing his job? In every comic, he is built like a big farm boy in a suit when he’s Clark…not to mention, you are on a bodybuilding website where many of us are bigger than average but have jobs that aren’t stereotyped for “weight lifters”.
I think it is more fucked up that you think bigger muscles would cause someone to not be able to fit in at all when many of us do this all day everyday.[/quote]
Farm boys don’t look like Mr. Universe I think he should look stocky but not huge and ripped. And neither should a lot of heroes, it just doesn’t make since for SOME of them.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
Why even bother to complain? Movie execs made a series of decisions that created the divide between the comic and the movie to bring in the audience that don’t read comic books. Of course they don’t care if the adaptation is a faithful one or not: they don’t know any different.
Even then, they can sniff out a crappy adaptation of superhero movie. The poor reviews of X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn’t only come from fanboys. What does that tell you? It tells me that the general process for big budget movie production is flawed. It’s not exclusive to the superhero genre. It happens across the board.
I “complain” in this instance because there’s only so far Darren Aronofsky can go to bring Hugh Jackman closer to the comic book character he’s portraying, seeing as accuracy wasn’t a prime concern to begin with. Surely you can understand that…
If Aronofsky doesn’t have the clout to re-cast, why don’t you e-mail him and ask him what’s the point of telling Jackman to bulk up in an effort to bring him closer to Wolverine’s roots?
Also read that big-ass post I just wrote about it before you comment any further on how pointless it is to complain about it… And let me direct you back to what I said to you in The Dark Knight Rises thread about superhero movies only kicking ass if people care.
[/quote]
I think we’re on the same page across the board. I agree that the producers and directors should treat the source material with more respect and adapt around it. You mention X-Men Wolverine, it didn’t those reviews because Jackman didn’t look like the comic book Wolverine. With that said I think we’re mature enough to agree that nailing the personality and attitude of the character is more important than the physical appearance (so long its not TOO far off).
[/quote]
I don’t think we are on the same page. You asked me why bother to complain about it and you said height isn’t an important element. Look, Wolverine was called ‘Wolverine’ because actual wolverines are small, ferocious animals that can defeat much larger opponents.
The name influenced the character and the character influenced the name. Don’t you see anything wrong with that?
That in itself is a no-brainer and I’m kicking myself for not mentioning it sooner. Making Wolverine 6’2" tall is like calling someone like Prof. X ‘skinny’. It actually insults the audiences’ intelligence. And that happens a lot.
People are more discerning than the execs give them credit for (when they can be bothered to sit and actually watch a film that is). Box office success is no guarantee of how good a movie is. It just means that someone has bought a ticket. How many times have you sat in a theater and had to listen to a group of teens (or adults for that matter) chattering and fidgeting through the entire thing? The fact that they can do this and still identify a crap movie surely makes the movie even worse, doesn’t it?
Wolverine got bad reviews because of poor executive decision-making. I was not pinning the blame for the poor reception on Jackman’s appearance (that’s pointless - he can’t change the way he looks)… but he was cast in the first place because of the same decision-making process that screwed the movie.
I’ve already explained why these bad decisions come about in my above posts. All you have to do is read it.
Hugh Jackman was cast because they wanted to portray Logan as a leading man to boost the female audience. It’s as simple as that. They ignored everything that pointed to the contrary like most obviously, the name “Wolverine”. It’s too late to undo the damage because the previous movies have laid a generally weak foundation for this new movie.
IMO, Aronofksy shouldn’t get on this train. He should find a new property that he can build from the ground up.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You certainly would not want Superman looking like he is stage ready either. Superman is meant to blend in. Do you think a flying man that looks like Mr. Universe is going to blend? Granted Routh was thin, but I think he did a pretty good job considering. [/quote]
? Why would a flying man looking like anyone blend in? How does being bigger than average keep him from doing his job? In every comic, he is built like a big farm boy in a suit when he’s Clark…not to mention, you are on a bodybuilding website where many of us are bigger than average but have jobs that aren’t stereotyped for “weight lifters”.
I think it is more fucked up that you think bigger muscles would cause someone to not be able to fit in at all when many of us do this all day everyday.[/quote]
I mean no disrespect to you X. However I believe many people do “fit in” in their daily lives due to the fact that those around them are used to seeing you. I guarantee when you go out of town you have people looking, pointing, talking, I have seen this happen to me. I am simply saying from a purely science fiction to reality scenario, that Clark Kent/Superman should not look like a body builder. He should appear as an average man. Besides, how in the hell is he to pump up? DL a couple of planets?
Still Love Ya X. No one loves Smallville more than the two of us.
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
I am simply saying from a purely science fiction to reality scenario, that Clark Kent/Superman should not look like a body builder. He should appear as an average man.[/quote]
See my comment in The Dark Knight Rises thread about the unnecessary application of realism to every superhero movie in the wake of the success of TDK.
[quote]sardines12 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You certainly would not want Superman looking like he is stage ready either. Superman is meant to blend in. Do you think a flying man that looks like Mr. Universe is going to blend? Granted Routh was thin, but I think he did a pretty good job considering. [/quote]
? Why would a flying man looking like anyone blend in? How does being bigger than average keep him from doing his job? In every comic, he is built like a big farm boy in a suit when he’s Clark…not to mention, you are on a bodybuilding website where many of us are bigger than average but have jobs that aren’t stereotyped for “weight lifters”.
I think it is more fucked up that you think bigger muscles would cause someone to not be able to fit in at all when many of us do this all day everyday.[/quote]
Farm boys don’t look like Mr. Universe I think he should look stocky but not huge and ripped. And neither should a lot of heroes, it just doesn’t make since for SOME of them.[/quote]
Having grown up on a farm, I was going to play devil’s advocate on this for once and say that Kryptonians don’t necessarily look like farm boys either. But Professor X is right. Superman is an alien who chooses to live by human rules even though he doesn’t have to.
This is something that never occurred to me before:
We’ve talked about Superman’s build a lot, but not much has been said of Clark Kent: look at the comic closely and the cartoons. Look at the cut and fit of Kent’s suits: they disguise his build instead of enhancing it. He doesn’t shrink between identities. Look at his posture.
He’s not a catwalk model who needs to stay slim to fit into a suit. He gets the suits made to make him appear like he fits into them normally. There are always clues in comics and cartoons. They shouldn’t be ignored.