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.

14 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Best of Both Worlds... by Rob.Mathers · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they'll create a new super-character! Think about it, SuperNeo would have no weaknesses! "There is no kryptonite."

    --

    My other sig is funny!
  2. Its only cause of his last name... by checkitout · · Score: 5, Funny

    George Reeves played the original superman on TV.

    Christopher Reeves played him in the movies from the late 70's early 80's.

    So logically they want Keanu Reeves now..

    1. Re:Its only cause of his last name... by netsharc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well to be pedantic, he's Christoper Reeve, with no final "s". Oh and sources says it'll be his birthday in 10 days (the 25th). Happy Birthday Superman, I hope you get well soon.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    2. Re:Its only cause of his last name... by Saeger · · Score: 5, Funny
      Three Reeves?

      Must be a glitch in the Matrix...

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  3. Heaven help us by rhysweatherley · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I just can't image Ted "Theodore" Logan as Superman. It just doesn't work.

    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.

  4. Here we go by starseeker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only movie I've seen this guy work well in was The Matrix, basically because he was perfect for the roll without needing to act. (Ok, I was entertained somehow by Speed, but don't ask me why. I haven't figured it out.)

    In all fairness, it's probably pretty hard to find someone who can play the role. My take on it is that they should find some actor who isn't known to the public. If someone has played other characters, it's kinda hard to get over that association. No one thinks of Superman as someone you'd know from somewhere else.

    (Sort of on topic - I was very glad to hear the news that Christopher Reeve has regained some sensation and muscular control.
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/09/13/reeves.reco ve ry.ap/index.html
    There's a real story of inspiration and hope. My hat's off to him. This is why you never give up.)

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Here we go by Chemical · · Score: 5, Funny
      The only movie I've seen this guy work well in was The Matrix

      Aren't you forgetting Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, the greatest movie ever made? "Ted" was by far Keanu's best performace to date. He was the perfect choice to portray a SoCal airhead. His performance just seemed so natural.

  5. I agree by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I very much agree. I thought Keaton was quite good as Batman -- he certainly played a much more convincing Bruce Wayne than the others. Val Kilmer sucked -- too much of the playboy type, rather than the tragic figure that Wayne was supposed to be. George Clooney could have been okay, but again he tried too much to be the sex god rather than the dark figure that Batman and Bruce Wayne really are. Keaton got the brooding, darker side of Batman/Wayne much better than the others did. (And the Batman movies just weren't the same without Tim Burton's vision anyway.)

    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.
  6. Re:huh? by Peale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wasn't so much that he had the 'dark motivations' on his face as that, like the comic book Batman, he separated the two. Bruce Wayne was one character, and Batman was a completely different character.

    Dual personalities at their best.

  7. Real Superman having a more impressive comeback by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

    In recent news, for those of you who missed it...
    (shortened - please excuse any bad english since I'm translating from Swedish.. perhaps anyone has a good link?)

    Christopher Reeve Defeating His Paralysis

    "For the first time since his spinal paralysis, Christopher Reeve can move fingers and toes. This makes his doctors believe that he might be able to walk again.

    - No one that have been affected by such severe injuries have regained motion and feeling in the way Chris has, said doctor John McDonald at Washington University of Science.

    Breathes On His Own

    In the last months, Christopher Reeve's health has dramatically increased. Besides his motion and feeling abilities, he can breathe on his own for one and a half hour. He is grateful of the progress and says the best thing is that he can feel the hugs from his wife Dana and his three children.

    - To feel the smallest touch is truly a gift, he says in the coming issue of People Weekly.

    Reeve also mentions that he can feel needle stings over large parts of his body, make difference between warm and cold and sharp and blunt.

    But the treatment hasn't been free. His muscle stimulation and special training has cost the 49 year old movie star more than 2,5 million per year (not sure if that's 2,5 million swedish crowns or USD). The costs has partly been covered by his insurance and partly by collections made by his friends in Hollywood."


    So, to me, Superman will still be the only super man to me, especially after reading this.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  8. Why pick on Keanu? by vanyel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Time for a name change. by CleverNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    [wil@hollywood]$ mv /actor/unemployed/wil.wheaton /actor/rich/famous/wil.reeves

  10. Keanu? by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There's nothing super about Keanu. There's nothing Super about Keanu either. Clark Kent needs to be muscular and yet VERY button-down with a wry charm and amazing command of the language about him. Superman needs to be stoic and heroic with bulges everywhere...including his mind. Keanu is none of these things in any role or physical appearance he's ever had. His fame is rightly from being the 90's grunge guy. It's like trying to get Stallone to play a nerd.

    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
  11. How times have changed. by Dan+Crash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.