Routh's & Huntington's Thoughts About Man Of Steel?

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/166273-what-do-routh-and-huntington-think-about-man-of-steel

SuperHeroHype got a chance to talk to Dylan Dog: Dead of Night stars Brandon Routh and Sam Huntington today and we asked them about Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman movie Man of Steel. The two actors previously starred together in the Bryan Singer-directed Superman Returns in 2006.

SuperHeroHype: Have the wounds healed over the Superman casting?

(They both laugh)

Routh: It's long over and it's all done. I obviously want them to do a nice job because there are a lot of people counting on a good film. Including us.

Huntington: We all want to see a good movie.

Routh: It's Hollywood.

Huntington: They've got Nolan and Snyder, so visually and story-wise, they'll come together for something...

Dumb, and dumberer!

Can Brandon 'BJ' Routhman really say that?! Like him or not, you'd think he'd be extremely pissed about this! But 'it's Hollywood'. I guess Ruth is practicing his kissing technique for 'Hollywood' & will probably have to buy some knee-pads. Ruth gotta eat!

I wouldn't expect anything besides diplomatic answers like that. Maybe a megastar could get by with talking shit because he was relieved of his duties but "2006's biggest star" has barely been seen or heard from since 2006.

Don't worry, he'll be on 'Celebrity Fit Camp' in about 2 years anyway.

'Dylan Does Dogs' is going to flop. HARD.

non_amos wrote:http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/166273-what-do-routh-and-huntington-think-about-man-of-steel

SuperHeroHype got a chance to talk to Dylan Dog: Dead of Night stars Brandon Routh and Sam Huntington today and we asked them about Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman movie Man of Steel. The two actors previously starred together in the Bryan Singer-directed Superman Returns in 2006.

SuperHeroHype: How's you Hollywood career?

(They both laugh)

Routh: It's long over and it's all done.

There, that's better.

Here's a "fun fact" about 'Dylan Does Dogs: Especially At Night'. This shit-heap has been out overseas for over a month now. Check THIS out::

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Dylan-Dog-Dead-of-Night

Worldwide Gross $2,136,319

Yep. $2 million dollars in 30 freaking DAYS.

Father Finian wrote:

non_amos wrote:http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/166273-what-do-routh-and-huntington-think-about-man-of-steel

SuperHeroHype got a chance to talk to Dylan Dog: Dead of Night stars Brandon Routh and Sam Huntington today and we asked them about Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman movie Man of Steel. The two actors previously starred together in the Bryan Singer-directed Superman Returns in 2006.

SuperHeroHype: How's you Hollywood career?

(They both laugh)

Routh: It's long over and it's all done.

There, that's better.

Much, MUCH better!

Apologist Puncher wrote:Don't worry, he'll be on 'Celebrity Fit Camp' in about 2 years anyway.

'Dylan Does Dogs' is going to flop. HARD.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Here's a "fun fact" about 'Dylan Does Dogs: Especially At Night'. This shit-heap has been out overseas for over a month now. Check THIS out::

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Dylan-Dog-Dead-of-Night

Worldwide Gross $2,136,319

Yep. $2 million dollars in 30 freaking DAYS.

Yep. That's what I was getting ready to post. "Will" flop hard? ALREADY HAS flopped hard, you mean.

Still, Apologists and Apologist sympathizers are talking the movie up enough that it may pull, I dunno, a $2 million'ish opening weekend in the States (assuming it gets a pretty wide release, that is) but I just cannot imagine it'll do over the long haul what a Spider-Man movie does on opening weekend (or even what Singerman pathetically managed on that extensive opening weekend it had).

Of course, everytime I predict box office, I end up being WAY wrong. I figured the first Transformers would be lucky to earn a nickel and that Singerman would do something like $250 to $270 in the States just because of the name association. Clearly I was *WAY* wrong on both counts.

thecolorsblend wrote:
Yep. That's what I was getting ready to post. "Will" flop hard? ALREADY HAS flopped hard, you mean.

I just look forward to it's OFFICIAL flop status, and the ending of BJ.

Still, Apologists and Apologist sympathizers are talking the movie up enough that it may pull, I dunno, a $2 million'ish opening weekend in the States (assuming it gets a pretty wide release, that is) but I just cannot imagine it'll do over the long haul what a Spider-Man movie does on opening weekend (or even what Singerman pathetically managed on that extensive opening weekend it had).

I predict a TOTAL box office take of $15 million dollars.

Of course, everytime I predict box office, I end up being WAY wrong. I figured the first Transformers would be lucky to earn a nickel and that Singerman would do something like $250 to $270 in the States just because of the name association. Clearly I *WAY* wrong on both counts.

Yes, you WERE.

But with BJ "starring", you have a 90% chance of being correct.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9639#comments

Only 4 comments on this same thing over on duh Homopage's reporting of this?! I'd have thought it would be FULL of 'BJ-ers'. What gives? Ain't that unusual? But even out of 4 comments, at least one doesn't disappoint:

#2 | georgethree33 on April 21, 2011 7:15pm EST
Routh is still the man. Well since the JLA movie won't have ANYTHING in common with the Superman or Batman films - I think that Brandon should be the Superman of the JLA franchise!!!

At least some of duh sheeple are still predictable.

That Homopage link I posted is now up to 14 comments. Still kinda slow for BJ-lovers. But I found this little 'nugget' to whet your appetites:

#14 | King Creole on April 22, 2011 4:23pm EST
I agree with those that says that it wasn't BR's fault that SR failed miserably. But the director and mainly the writers. They were first to quit when they smelled that this movie was rotting. I never felt plesed whn they choose those guys as writers. They seemed to inexperiece imo. At least for Superman material. Angry

I hope that the new movie succed where this one failed. And I wish BR a succesful career. I hope they cast him in the JLA movie as Superman. Then maybe with a good director and writer(s) he can do a better job, and give us the fans the portrayal we were all expecting but never got. I am sure he is capable of doing an outstanding performence of the MOS under a better guidance and better script.

I put this apologists frequent grammar mistakes in 'bold' so as to not have to repeat everything. Notice though how 'BJ' still escapes any blame for the debacle know as Singerman. It's all Singer's & the writer's faults for that film being 'rotting'. And just how old is this person, 8? Either he's really young or just a flat-out apologist, probably the latter.

non_amos wrote:Notice though how 'BJ' still escapes any blame for the debacle know as Singerman. It's all Singer's & the writer's faults for that film being 'rotting'. And just how old is this person, 8? Either he's really young or just a flat-out apologist, probably the latter.

It's funny how no Apologist can argue too much when you point out that Blandon was the exact same in everything else he does. Zack & Miri, Chuck, Scott Pilgrim (or whatever that movie was called), etc, he's still got all the charm and charisma of a chunk of wood. He's worked with some fairly notable directors by this point. Are *ALL* of them incapable of getting a decent performance out of the guy? And if they are... whose fault is that??

I swear, these Eunuch page Apologists...

"Hi, my name is Brandon Routh. Can I take your order?"

The saga continues:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9653#comments

And the link they got it from, complete with audio:

http://foxallaccess.blogs.fox.com/2011/04/25/script-onite-brandon-routh-says-story-flaws-did-in-superman-returns/

And duh usual apologist comment:

Saying it was not well received by critics is inaccurate and a flat out lie (FYI to the hack writer of this article). It received many rave reviews and has a 76% positive rating on Rotten Tomatos. Also, it made about the same amount as Batman Begins. Just sayin…

By: Ryan - Posted April 26th, 2011 4:40am

Still harping on that huh?!

So 'BJ' blames the story flaws for what did in Singerman huh?! But what else would you expect?

Well, in BJ's defense, he was one of MANY huge mistakes in Singerman... all of which point back to the director. If Singer hadn't been hired, none of us would've ever heard of Routh and, in all probability, we would've gotten a decent reboot before now with a REAL Superman actor instead of that plank of wood.

thecolorsblend wrote:Well, in BJ's defense, he was one of MANY huge mistakes in Singerman... all of which point back to the director. If Singer hadn't been hired, none of us would've ever heard of Routh and, in all probability, we would've gotten a decent reboot before now with a REAL Superman actor instead of that plank of wood.

Touche'!

But the feeling I get is that King Plank himself blames everything else but himself. And duh apologists at duh Homopage usually reflect this sentiment. They blame Singer and duh writers but ol' BJ usually escapes unscathed. Sure, there may be a few 'voices of reason' here & there but he still has his loyal following. Note though swrighty's current stance from duh Homopage link provided:

#9 | Steve Wright on April 26, 2011 8:27am EST
While I have no problem with Brandon as a person, from all accounts he is an very nice and personable fellow, I don't think he should be recast in any reboot or JL movie. When I've gone back to watch his performance and his performances since, I just don't see the quality of acting that I want from the actor portraying Superman. Yes, he reminded me of Reeve, which is why I liked the movie when it first came out. But, with time I can look at it more subjectively and I just don't see it.

I believe I'm seeing some change like this at duh Homopage but there's still the usual 'BJ for JLA' crapola as well.

non_amos wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Well, in BJ's defense, he was one of MANY huge mistakes in Singerman... all of which point back to the director. If Singer hadn't been hired, none of us would've ever heard of Routh and, in all probability, we would've gotten a decent reboot before now with a REAL Superman actor instead of that plank of wood.

Touche'!

Of course, I'd argue that BJ was probably the biggest and definitely the most visible mistake of the enterprise so maybe my point isn't as good as I first thought.

But the feeling I get is that King Plank himself blames everything else but himself. And duh apologists at duh Homopage usually reflect this sentiment. They blame Singer and duh writers but ol' BJ usually escapes unscathed. Sure, there may be a few 'voices of reason' here & there but he still has his loyal following. Note though swrighty's current stance from duh Homopage link provided:

#9 | Steve Wright on April 26, 2011 8:27am EST
While I have no problem with Brandon as a person, from all accounts he is an very nice and personable fellow, I don't think he should be recast in any reboot or JL movie. When I've gone back to watch his performance and his performances since, I just don't see the quality of acting that I want from the actor portraying Superman. Yes, he reminded me of Reeve, which is why I liked the movie when it first came out. But, with time I can look at it more subjectively and I just don't see it.

I believe I'm seeing some change like this at duh Homopage but there's still the usual 'BJ for JLA' crapola as well.

I think it's Puncher who says that swrong just parrots whatever he's told. And more and more, I'm coming around to that way of thinking. I swear to remember posts from swrong where he would go pretty far in defending his boyfriend... I mean, defending BJ's honor but now he's singing a different tune? Too late, fucko, you backed the wrong horse in 2006! No tradebacks.

And you're absodamnlutely right Routh never gets criticized. I liken it to Chris Reeve in STM. Admittedly, Reeve had a hell of a lot more to work with than Routh did but, any way you care to slice it, Reeve still had to contend with a weak script and a director with a penchant for silly villains. Based strictly on most of the raw ingredients, STM ought to be a big stinker. But it isn't. It's quite good.

Push comes to shove? STM owes its watchability to exactly two things:
01- Chris Reeve
02- John Williams

You take those two things away and you've got a movie with a fairly strong first and second act, a VERY messed up third act, inconsistent direction, hammy villains, HIGHLY overrated effects sequences, etc.

But Reeve and the music? They somehow tie the piece together and you're able to somehow overlook the flaws.

Routh was given a similar opportunity in Singerman. Again, he was MUCH further behind the 8-ball than Reeve was but he still had the chance to play the part and make it SHINE.

But we all know what happened. The scenes he didn't bumble his way through, he merely looked like a piece of wood. And was about as charming.

Reeve took a weak film and made it GREAT. Routh took what was already a turd burger and made it into a sewer.

So yeah, Harris, Dougherty, Singer, Mingenbach, Spacey, they ALL played their parts but Routhboy's craptastic "acting" sealed the deal, if you ask me. He could never have saved the movie under his own merits but he could've reduced the suckitude by some moderate degree so that I don't cringe just looking at him playing Superman dress up when any number of unemployed actors in Los Angeles could've probably done a MUCH better job.

Routh can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

thecolorsblend wrote:Of course, I'd argue that BJ was probably the biggest and definitely the most visible mistake of the enterprise so maybe my point isn't as good as I first thought.

Anyone who tries EXCUSING the "star" of a failed summer blockbuster is an idiot. No if's-and's-or-but's about it. Look at what Clooney did after 'Batman & Robin'. Took RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT FAILING.

BJ could learn a lot about being a MAN, and fucking ACTING TOO, from George Clooney.

I think it's Puncher who says that swrong just parrots whatever he's told. And more and more, I'm coming around to that way of thinking. I swear to remember posts from swrong where he would go pretty far in defending his boyfriend... I mean, defending BJ's honor but now he's singing a different tune? Too late, fucko, you backed the wrong horse in 2006! No tradebacks.

It was me indeed. And as you can see, I was right once again.

And you're absodamnlutely right Routh never gets criticized. I liken it to Chris Reeve in STM. Admittedly, Reeve had a hell of a lot more to work with than Routh did but, any way you care to slice it, Reeve still had to contend with a weak script and a director with a penchant for silly villains. Based strictly on most of the raw ingredients, STM ought to be a big stinker. But it isn't. It's quite good.

Push comes to shove? STM owes its watchability to exactly two things:
01- Chris Reeve
02- John Williams

You take those two things away and you've got a movie with a fairly strong first and second act, a VERY messed up third act, inconsistent direction, hammy villains, HIGHLY overrated effects sequences, etc.

But Reeve and the music? They somehow tie the piece together and you're able to somehow overlook the flaws.

Routh was given a similar opportunity in Singerman. Again, he was MUCH further behind the 8-ball than Reeve was but he still had the chance to play the part and make it SHINE.

But we all know what happened. The scenes he didn't bumble his way through, he merely looked like a piece of wood. And was about as charming.

Reeve took a weak film and made it GREAT. Routh took what was already a turd burger and made it into a sewer.

So yeah, Harris, Dougherty, Singer, Mingenbach, Spacey, they ALL played their parts but Routhboy's craptastic "acting" sealed the deal, if you ask me. He could never have saved the movie under his own merits but he could've reduced the suckitude by some moderate degree so that I don't cringe just looking at him playing Superman dress up when any number of unemployed actors in Los Angeles could've probably done a MUCH better job.

Can ANYONE claim that Bruce Lee's movies had "deep" stories, heavy drama, or fleshed-out characters? Top-notch supporting cast? Mind-bending special FX? Oscar-caliber direction? No? But you STILL get a kick out of watching them, right? Why is that??

Because Bruce Fuckin' Lee had CHARISMA out the ASS.

You knew when he was pissed. You knew when he was happy. He ELECTRIFIED the screen, no matter WHAT the story entailed. So for people to try and claim that BJ WASN'T a problem in Singerman's shittiness, I just say this:

Routh can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

I hope to run into him on the street one day. I still really do.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Look at what Clooney did after 'Batman & Robin'. Took RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT FAILING.

BJ could learn a lot about being a MAN, and fucking ACTING TOO, from George Clooney.

Yup. Real men take responsibility for their actions and choices. When you screw up publicly, you apologize publicly. That's why Singer's career is basically over. He won't take responsibility for how he screwed up Superman, and points the finger at everyone else. Just man up and apologize, Singer. Clooney did it. Schumacher did it. You can do it too.

As far as Brandon Routh is concerned... the guy's a complete void of screen presence. The argument that he didn't have enough material to work with never ceases to ring false, because it's the little bit parts that actors make their own that GETS THEM NOTICED. You bring something to the role to flesh out a bit part, showcase your skills, and move on to bigger and better things. That's how Hollywood works.

道 wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:Look at what Clooney did after 'Batman & Robin'. Took RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT FAILING.

BJ could learn a lot about being a MAN, and fucking ACTING TOO, from George Clooney.

Yup. Real men take responsibility for their actions and choices. When you screw up publicly, you apologize publicly. That's why Singer's career is basically over. He won't take responsibility for how he screwed up Superman, and points the finger at everyone else. Just man up and apologize, Singer. Clooney did it. Schumacher did it. You can do it too.

As far as Brandon Routh is concerned... the guy's a complete void of screen presence. The argument that he didn't have enough material to work with never ceases to ring false, because it's the little bit parts that actors make their own that GETS THEM NOTICED. You bring something to the role to flesh out a bit part, showcase your skills, and move on to bigger and better things. That's how Hollywood works.

Precisely. Nobody will ever convince me it's an accident that his post-Singerman work has mostly been as a supporting player rather than the lead.

My favorite was when Singer blamed the marketing department though. Dude, Singerman was EVERYWHERE during the summer of 2006. You had trailers, TV spots, cereal tie-ins, merchandising of various types, the cast and crew doing various junkets and promo stuff, a mega premiere (for which Singer dressed like a frat boy rather than dressing formally), so on and so forth.

You can't argue with the results. Lackluster though the film itself was, it did (relative to subsequent weekends) decent business on opening weekend. In the end, that's all ANY marketing department can offer. They got asses in the seats that first weekend by selling Singerman as an action film and then, once the truth came out, audiences turned away. Singer should've gotten down on his knees and praised the marketing department for what they did manage to do instead of selling them out to the international media just to protect his fucking ego. Sooner or later, the film has to rise and fall on its own merits and Singerman fell, there's no way other to look at it.

Singer made a shit film, wide audiences clearly preferred Pirates 2, end of story; anything people care to tack on to that is pure denial (a favorite Apologist tactic).

Not quite apples to apples but if you listen to the commentary for the Smallville episode Thirst, Gough and Millar plainly (and frequently) cop to the episode's many and varied shortcomings. They explain a bit about what happened, they offer a pretty balanced view of things but, in the end, they acknowledge the episode was mostly shit (apart from the James Marsters scenes anyway; those ruled as might be expected), they cowboy up and accept responsibility for it. They make similar admissions about other episodes in other commentaries. Not saying they walk on water but they're at least realistic about what works and what doesn't.

The artist formerly known as Steve/Fagley/Whatever said:

"As far as Brandon Routh is concerned... the guy's a complete void of screen presence. The argument that he didn't have enough material to work with never ceases to ring false, because it's the little bit parts that actors make their own that GETS THEM NOTICED. You bring something to the role to flesh out a bit part, showcase your skills, and move on to bigger and better things. That's how Hollywood works."

You know what? For some reason, Ah-nuld in the first Terminator film came to mind immediately. We know that he talked us to death in the 2nd film with his nicer, gentler 'I won't kill anyone' self, but in the 1st film, he was mostly just a silent killing machine. Sure, he said, "I'll be back." He also said a few other lines in the film but if you'll note, he was mostly just an efficient killing machine. It could be argued that he, like BJ the Bartender, had a 'lack of dialogue'. But what's the difference? THE TERMINATOR made Ah-nuld a major star in spite of limited dialogue. SINGERMAN for BJ? Not so much!

MY point? Ah-nuld owned that role in spite of those facts & went on to a major film career. In BJ's defense, duh apologists like to cite 'he didn't have many lines' so it wasn't his fault. But Ah-nuld didn't have many lines either. So you tell me, what's the difference? Shouldn't BJ have been able to 'own' the role too? But he didn't.

thecolorsblend wrote:You take those two things away and you've got a movie with a fairly strong first and second act, a VERY messed up third act, inconsistent direction, hammy villains, HIGHLY overrated effects sequences, etc.

You are a broken record mate. Highly overrated effects? That's an absolutely laughable suggestion, they were state of the art at the time. Fact. Stop thinking that STM was made yesterday, for cryin out loud. Remember, up until then we had George Reeves bouncing out a window.

And just because you don't like the lighthearted tone of the the third act doesn't make you correct either. It is a FILM for the masses, not a comic book for basement dwellers. You display your ignorance of the medium of film when you continuously dismiss this movie in the manner you do. Ever notice the incredible cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth? The sublime editing? I guess not, you don't appreciate subtle cinema stuff like that when your head's buried in comics......

Sure, it's a product of the 1970's but it was, and still IS a very well made, and dare I say it, a classic movie.

I know it's difficult to accept but it is almost universally regarded (by many, well published authorities of cinema. Look it up) as the benchmark superhero film. There's more going on than just Reeve & Williams getting the rest of the show over the line, as great as they were.

Father Finian wrote:You are a broken record mate. Highly overrated effects? That's an absolutely laughable suggestion, they were state of the art at the time. Fact. Stop thinking that STM was made yesterday, for cryin out loud. Remember, up until then we had George Reeves bouncing out a window.

And just because you don't like the lighthearted tone of the the third act doesn't make you correct either. It is a FILM for the masses, not a comic book for basement dwellers. You display your ignorance of the medium of film when you continuously dismiss this movie in the manner you do. Ever notice the incredible cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth? The sublime editing? I guess not, you don't appreciate subtle cinema stuff like that when your head's buried in comics......

Sure, it's a product of the 1970's but it was, and still IS a very well made, and dare I say it, a classic movie.

I know it's difficult to accept but it is almost universally regarded (by many, well published authorities of cinema. Look it up) as the benchmark superhero film. There's more going on than just Reeve & Williams getting the rest of the show over the line, as great as they were.

My initial introduction to the character Superman was from Superman The Movie. I was a VERY young tike, but it hit me like a freight train. I was a life-long fan, and I knew it. I have watched that film more than ANY OTHER, and that ain't hyperbole. So you would think that a new Superman film made in that "vein" would be right up my alley, no?

Fuck NO.

If Christopher Reeve COULDN'T be Superman again, that version of the character needed to be put to rest. Period. How muthafuckin' disrespectful is it to throw a talentless piece of shit in a bastardized version of the Superman costume on-screen and say "Look, it's the SAME GUY. But it's not. But he's playing him!!"? Scrape everything away from his 4 Superman movies, and you STILL have Reeve's embodiment of the character. The way he looked like he stepped off the comic page and into real life. That is enough for me, no matter the quality of the films.

But it's time for something new. No matter how much I enjoy and revere those films, I have moved on. The world has moved on.

You don't look backwards in order to move forward.

Father Finian wrote:You are a broken record mate. Highly overrated effects? That's an absolutely laughable suggestion, they were state of the art at the time.

And they're held up by many as benchmark effects even now. This is particularly true of the rear-projection stuff. However, many of those rear-projection effects suffer from over-saturated colors, crushed blacks, blown whites, etc.

I surmise the reason for that is because someone shot aerial plate photography without taking into account that the footage would be rear-projected and re-photographed, resulting in the above weaknesses.

And just because you don't like the lighthearted tone of the the third act doesn't make you correct either.

It does clash with the first two acts; that much isn't up for debate.

It is a FILM for the masses,

Which has what to do with putting together a coherent, consistent piece? If it's supposed to be "for the masses", isn't the onus on the filmmaker to present the material as being just as credible as non-comic book fare? Is he suddenly allowed to change the tone of the story he's telling for absolutely no reason just because it's a comic book movie "for the masses"?

You display your ignorance of the medium of film when you continuously dismiss this movie in the manner you do.

I think it has a fuckton of weaknesses and shortcomings that nobody ever talks about because, at some point, Donner's film assumed a disproportionate amount of influence over the mythos. I say what I say to point out that, good though the film may be (a point I made in the post you're replying to, incidentally; it was hardly an STM bashfest), it doesn't epitomize Superman as a comic book character or, for that matter, fare well as the high falutin', high art cinema it's rabid followers regard it as.

I understand a lot of people have a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in that movie. And that's great. But the movie has several problems.

Ever notice the incredible cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth?

Yes.

The sublime editing?

Yes.

I guess not, you don't appreciate subtle cinema stuff like that when your head's buried in comics.

Don't talk like you know me.

I know it's difficult to accept but it is almost universally regarded (by many, well published authorities of cinema. Look it up) as the benchmark superhero film.

I could give two fucks what "well published authorities" think of it. My opinion is the only one I'm concerned with. I evaluate it as a Superman story, medium notwithstanding. On that basis, it has a lot going for it. But it's also got a lot of weaknesses that, for whatever reason, people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

There's more going on than just Reeve & Williams getting the rest of the show over the line, as great as they were.

Reeve and Williams are the glue of STM. Take them away and you've got a lesser film.

The larger point I was shooting for there is that Reeve did a hell of a lot with the opportunity he'd been given and is at least half the reason the film is as good as it is. Meanwhile BJ The Bartender bumbled around and fucked it all up.

"The larger point I was shooting for there is that Reeve did a hell of a lot with the opportunity he'd been given and is at least half the reason the film is as good as it is. Meanwhile BJ The Bartender bumbled around and fucked it all up."

Reeve was actually good in other films as well but I believe due to typecasting that he really didn't get his 'due'. For example, shortly after STM he starred along with Jane Seymour in a film called SOMEWHERE IN TIME. This was a love story with a 'time-travel twist' but believe it or not, this film actually has its' own cult following! And it's actually a pretty good film too but you might wanna watch it with your 'old lady' so to speak. It didn't do too well at the box office but it did receive an Oscar nomination for best costumes & also received other awards with other events, including Christopher Reeve as best actor at something called 'Fantafestival':

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081534/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081534/awards

Reeve also went on to star in other films besides the Superman franchise but I feel that he remained 'under-rated' due to typecasting. One film I liked was the last one he did before his accident, the remake of VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED. Ya know, it's funny. In Reeve's day, he was obviously a gifted actor but even he fell victim to typecasting! But today.....? You have major actors lining up to star in a COMIC BOOK FILM! It's no longer just 'unknowns' getting cast for lead roles while established actors take the supporting roles. And you know what? They no longer get typecast! Definitely not like the days of George Reeves for example. Superman curse?! Bah humbug! It's probably just now the films are actually accepted & taken seriously. And we definitely have Christopher Reeve to thank for that.

As for the 1st 2 Superman films, I never saw the 1st one in the theater; Superman 2 was the one. I fell in love with the film! Actually I liked it better than the 1st film for the longest time & I first saw STM on network TV with the cut scenes added back in. Later I saw S2 on TV with the same situation. But here's my current problem. I've seen those films so many times that I've 'worn them out'. Now it seems like I'm actually bored & just going through some sort of ritual or something. I can even fall asleep on them! So.....with all reverence to Reeve & those films, nevertheless I'm looking forward to this reboot because I want something new, no disrespect intended. Hopefully Henry Cavill will 'own' the role like Reeve did & win us over. And Brandon 'BJ' Routhman can become just a distant memory!

non_amos wrote:Reeve was actually good in other films as well but I believe due to typecasting that he really didn't get his 'due'. For example, shortly after STM he starred along with Jane Seymour in a film called SOMEWHERE IN TIME. This was a love story with a 'time-travel twist' but believe it or not, this film actually has its' own cult following! And it's actually a pretty good film too but you might wanna watch it with your 'old lady' so to speak. It didn't do too well at the box office but it did receive an Oscar nomination for best costumes & also received other awards with other events, including Christopher Reeve as best actor at something called 'Fantafestival':

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081534/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081534/awards

Reeve also went on to star in other films besides the Superman franchise but I feel that he remained 'under-rated' due to typecasting. One film I liked was the last one he did before his accident, the remake of VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED. Ya know, it's funny. In Reeve's day, he was obviously a gifted actor but even he fell victim to typecasting! But today.....? You have major actors lining up to star in a COMIC BOOK FILM! It's no longer just 'unknowns' getting cast for lead roles while established actors take the supporting roles. And you know what? They no longer get typecast! Definitely not like the days of George Reeves for example. Superman curse?! Bah humbug! It's probably just now the films are actually accepted & taken seriously. And we definitely have Christopher Reeve to thank for that.

As for the 1st 2 Superman films, I never saw the 1st one in the theater; Superman 2 was the one. I fell in love with the film! Actually I liked it better than the 1st film for the longest time & I first saw STM on network TV with the cut scenes added back in. Later I saw S2 on TV with the same situation. But here's my current problem. I've seen those films so many times that I've 'worn them out'. Now it seems like I'm actually bored & just going through some sort of ritual or something. I can even fall asleep on them! So.....with all reverence to Reeve & those films, nevertheless I'm looking forward to this reboot because I want something new, no disrespect intended. Hopefully Henry Cavill will 'own' the role like Reeve did & win us over. And Brandon 'BJ' Routhman can become just a distant memory!

I don't buy that Reeve was typecast. The guy had talent dripping out his ears and everybody knew it. He turned down the lead in American Gigolo, The World According to Garp, Splash, Fatal Attraction, Pretty Woman, Romancing the Stone, Lethal Weapon and Body Heat. His beef was that he didn't want to be regarded as an action hero actor so he declined a lot of stuff. Reeve wanted to be an ACTOR, not a STAR.

But he was a star at the time (something BJ boy sure as shit never accomplished).

I'd imagine he found himself in a situation similar to post-Star Wars Harrison Ford where serious offers were being made but they just weren't interesting. But unlike Ford, Reeve wasn't willing to play ball and do the less desirable parts in order to build up and establish his repertoire. As a result, he didn't ever have the career he wanted to have. I've since heard third- and fourth-hand that Reeve could be a bit of a prima donna during negotiations (which fits given the above). He was usually the picture of professionalism and maturity onset... but getting him there could sometimes be a real trick.

What's my point? Reeve didn't have the career he wanted because, ultimately, he was a bit impatient. There was a ton of interest in him and, had he played his cards better, I suspect he would've had a MUCH better resume. But even there, the resume he had/has right now ain't bad at all. He was a director and producer, and did well at both. As to acting, the SV episodes he appeared prove once and for all that the man could make you believe in his performance even when he didn't have access to movement, body language and other tools of the trade. With just his face and voice, the man MADE YOU BELIEVE in his performance.

Now, you compare that to Blandon, who almost seemed to have entered the Witness Protection Program in 2007 and has only resurfaced since to do bit parts and cameos, and you realize once again that there's a WORLD of difference between Routh's career options vs. Reeve's.

Not bashing on you here, just wanted to throw in my two cents.