Slashdot Mirror
Keanu Reeves as Superman
M.C. Hampster writes "Fox News is reporting in this article that Superman is back in the planning stages at Warner Bros. with a possible Keanu Reeves playing the title role. Is this possibly the worse fit for an actor in a superhero role since Michael Keaton in Batman?" Perhaps they too will rotate in a new actor for each feature.
was the best for the part of batman, i thought.
They should do what they did with Spiderman - find a little known but good actor and have him re-invent the role. That way, the audience won't bring any misconceptions into the cinema, which will ruin the whole experience.
Michael Keaton played THE BEST batman, everyone I know agrees. He brought the perfect mix of mystery, drive, and intellect. You could see the dark motivations in his face, a person driven by the slaying of his parents. George Clooney? That was a cruel joke.
If this "mistake" is as bad as batman, I'll be first in line for the theater.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Keaton's choice was also greeted with skepticism by fans, but I think he did a good job. Which is why I would be willing to give Keanu Reeves the benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately Keanu is a lousy actor IMO -- he did okay in Matrix, but he stunk in just about everything else (his "performance" in Much Ado About Nothing was embarrassing).
Maybe the Hollywood execs thought they were 'honoring' Christoper Reeve by having an actor with nearly the same last name play Reeve's most memorable role. ;-P
But Christopher Reeve will always be the "real" Superman for me -- he was born to play that role IMO.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Superman is not a caucasian, he's from another planet.
Why would he be white? He was created by two jewish guys as a continuation of the golem myth (protecting the weak and all that), with some resonance of Nietchze thrown in.
One of the few movies I like Keanu in (Matrix), he doesn't say a lot. One of his biggest lines is "Whoa!" And that's a Good Thing.
Neo can get away with that, but Superman is suppose to give patriotic speeches and such, which would require Keanu to talk, which is bad. I don't have any evidence for this, but I bet as the number of words Reeves says in a movie increases, the quality of the movie decreases.
Why do we need ANOTHER superman anyway? Four wasn't enough? 3 Indiana Jones' wasn't enough? 2 Home Alone's was pushing it. Why so many sequals. Oh, that's because the movie industry is just reusing old ideas to make big bucks instead of making quality films with new stories in new directions. Maybe something with a little social commentary here or there.
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
His psycho bent on it was fantastic. Who did you prefer? VAL KILMER? GEORGE CLOONEY? Please ...
What makes Keanu a worse actor than say Sean Connery? As near as I can tell, what most people mean when they say he can't act is that he has a particular style that tends to come through no matter the role. That's definitely true of Sean, and he's one of the world's favorites. I'm really curious, because I think he's done a good job in a wide variety of roles.
batman was never supposed to be a superhero. he was meant to be the anti-hero in ways much more apparent (and believable) than any other comic... no superpowers; just drive, revenge, money, and ingenuity. the latter movies simply tried to pull off batman as being a gadget pimp without a care in the world... which just doesn't work when people know otherwise. keaton managed to convince us that there was a method to the madness, and a purpose to the gadgets, while kilmer and clooney's versions put the gadgets in because they were cool and the killing in because he 'had to'. come on! the whole reason batman goes after the joker is because he wants revenge... he's pissed and he wants the smiling face on a platter... there was no 'had to' there... he could have just been a worthless playboy, but he had a reason.
you can say that the cinematics are incredible in today's movies, but you'll never convince me that a movie without believable motive is anything more than a waste of time.
Keaton portrayed someone who was damaged. You could see in him someone who was uncomfortable dealing with the niceties of his high society surroundings, someone who knew that there was a dark thing writhing in the city that could only be fought against by something equally dark. The other players of Batman treated him as a one dimensional heroic figure.
I thought the first Batman movie was excellent. If only Jack had been 20 years younger he would have been the perfect Joker. He still pulled off a fine job.
The second movie introduced some nearly over-the-top performances (Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken) that seemed to give permission to the people who produced the next couple of movies to return to the campiness of the television series. The formula that is the theme of Batman (person is emotionally and physically wounded, person puts on a mask and exacts revenge on the rest of the world) is made truely formulamatic in the last few films. Tim Burton realized that such a formula could be made into camp unless you had actors with depth who could flesh out the struggle of dual persona. That is where Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Michelle Pfeiffer succeeded.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Instead, I think they should use Chris Klein.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
The reason some people (especially before the movie was released) thought Keaton was a bad choice for Batman, was that they didn't see him as having the physical stature associated with Batman. However, the reason he was the best Batman, of the modern three, is not because he was the best match for Batman, but the best match for Bruce Wayne. Since the actor's physical appearance is almost completely hidden by the Batman costume, he doesn't really need to be that close of a match. But since there isn't a costume for Bruce, he needs to match well. Keaton made the most conviencing Bruce, and that's what really mattered. Because, if you buy into him as the dark and deeply disturbed multi-millionaire Wayne (Val was too young looking, and Clooney looks too well adjusted), then all you need to do is buy into the costume as Batman in order for Keaton to be a good pick.
Superman is a different story. The custome doesn't really hide the physical appearance, or at least not as much as Batman's. Although, he might be able to pull off Clark, if he stay's away from his catch phase!
My karma is in a nose dive
I remember when Tim Burton first announced that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman -- "there's something in his eyes," he said -- and the fanboy crowd went ballistic. They shouted that Batman wasn't Mr. Mom, and that Burton had ruined the one comic book movie that fans had been waiting their whole lives for.
Now, a decade later, nearly every post says Keaton was the definitive Batman, and all the other actors (who at first blush seemed to be perfect Batman types) were the ones who ruined the franchise.
Michael Keaton's gotta be proud. He played a legendary character no one thought he could pull off, and then walked away from it, so everyone could see just how tough the job actually was. Now he's doing, what, Jack Frost II? Hollywood oughtta make him Perry White, Clark Kent's editor, in the new Superman pic. They owe him.
FWIW, I don't think we've seen the definitive Superman performance yet. Chris Reeve's Clark Kent was too buffoonish, his Superman too milquetoast. If Batman is supposed to have gone off the deep end because his parents were killed, how much more insane would losing your parents, your species, and your entire planet make you? Superman's a fascinating character, in his own way at least as flawed as Batman. I hope Hollywood can find an actor who can give as much to Superman's character as Keaton did to Batman.
(I should say that I have nothing but respect for Chris Reeve as an actor and human being. Superman is fantasy; Chris is real, and through his tireless advocacy and fundraising he may ultimately be responsible for saving more lives than his comicbook counterpart.)
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
..a few more years until the current cast of Smallville is old enough to be convincing in the parts. (Which shouldn't be long, they're a little old for the parts now -- but it's still an enjoyable show.)
;)
Although I'm curious about how and when Chloe Sullivan changes her name to Lois Lane.
-- Alastair