The more I hear it, the more I like the sound of... Black Superman.
New Superman movie coming from JJ Abrams
- Thread starter Johnny Utah
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Sachiel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,679
- Reaction score
- 860
It's ACTING. I really don't understand why someone's looks are so important. What matters is whether they can 'play' the character. Like, they might not look the part, but their acting makes you feel like they are that person. I think it's really important that with film becoming more diverse, people don't get hung up on petty things like skin color. Instead, appreciate the performance.
Err...Laurence Fishburne?
punisher1974
Super Freak
jye4ever
Broke and happy
loki2371
Super Freak
Watch them cast Amy Schumer
Now it makes sense!!!
This is supposed to be one of those spoof movies!! Like Scary Movie, Not Another Teen Movie, Meet The Spartans...
It all makes perfect sense now.. JJ & WB was trying to pull a fast on on us...
We're gonna have a new parody DCEU!!
Now it makes sense!!!
This is supposed to be one of those spoof movies!! Like Scary Movie, Not Another Teen Movie, Meet The Spartans...
It all makes perfect sense now.. JJ & WB was trying to pull a fast on on us...
We're gonna have a new parody DCEU!!
To quote Isaiah Bradley "No Self-respecting black actor would consider taking the part of Clark Kent"? Notice how Michael b Jordan wants no part of it, he was just asked again after this news dropped, said was flattered but had no interest in that role, he was more interested in talking about the Static Shock movie he is staring in. I wonder why that is, a black actor excited about a black comic book character. Its degrading and insulting to ask a black man to play Clark Kent, especially when they have 2 other black superman in the comics they could have used. What is wrong with black comic book characters? How do they not see the message they are sending here- that the comic book characters that look like you aren?t good enough, they have to be inserted into the white comic character?s role.
If this movie even gets past the writing room floor, they will have to cast an unknown actor who is just trying to breakthrough into acting.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Thanks Ray Fisher lol
Oh yeah... if only I watched that crap movie more than once.
Wait, why is that a bad thing? They used to do that all the time, most of everyone's favorite movies from long ago star unknowns or little-knowns at the time.
Iit?s a risky endeavor- you could get Hayden Christian Anakin skywalker, Taylor Kitsch John Carter, Brandon Routh Superman (although it wasn?t all his fault),
or you get Harrison Ford Han Solo. There is way more Hayden Christian, Taylor Klitsch type actors out there then there are Harrison Ford?s lol. If you think about it, you probably cannot really name many talented young up in coming actors (Tom Holland might be the only one i can think of) that have been taking hollywood by storm which is why Hollywood keeps casting these older established actors to play major roles.
And most of your favorite movies were from decades ago when actors took the trade seriously the recent films that may be your favorites are probably not casting many unknown actors in major roles- see mcu. They are casting those same guys that you liked in their breakout roles decades ago lol
Yeah but you forget Reeves. Sigouney. Connery. Arnold. Gibson. On and on in the late 70's early 80's. Unknowns were cool for a long time, until all those unknowns earned name value.
I didnt leave them out thats why i mentioned that most of your favorite movies (mine too) were from decades ago when actors took the trade seriously. Which is why they are still casting these guys today in major roles. The era of hollywood churning out amazing unknown actors is long gone- reality tv has destroyed the trade in general, too many go the youtuber route or insider or whatever they call it these days- its easy money. Its alot harder to go to acting school and hope to make it big- again outside of Tom Holland who is there??????? Im sure we will get a few here and there but ya its really risky these days, especially with the budgets of these flicks
Tom Hardy is another one. But I get what you're saying. I think there's a larger group than we think out there but they just don't get the chance like they used too. Too much risk now without a bean counter being able to calculate some modicum of pop culture connection like they do with IPs.
They would never make Star Wars today... they would have given George the rights to Flash Gordon like he wanted.
We're in the upside-down.
They would never make Star Wars today... they would have given George the rights to Flash Gordon like he wanted.
We're in the upside-down.
So true. Someone made a great comment a while back saying that pop culture was like a record that was playing over the decades but then when it hit the 80's it got a scratch making it skip and repeat the same thing ever since.
There is some kind of change from the 80's on. I think mostly due to corporations buying the studios. Their methods are different. They need proof something is going to be recognized before they invest rather than the old Hollywood way of gut instinct much of the time.
Old Hollywood had plenty of junk itself: the grand musical craze, the constant remakes of the classics, etc. The 80's might just have been that decade where Magic and Fantasy become massively popular. At least much of it was original.
The 90's is really where it all went wrong. Sequelitis. Remakes of everything the Baby Boomers grew up on. It became regurgitation for sake of recognition -- IPs became a thing before we had the term. And it hasn't changed much. Hell, they made a franchise out of a Disneyland ride.
Music also suffered in the following decade in much the same way once Napster killed the independents and only corporations could survive. You end up with Boy Bands and Britney knock-offs for a very long time -- all dance shows with little talent. Milli Vanilli were way ahead of their time.
Old Hollywood had plenty of junk itself: the grand musical craze, the constant remakes of the classics, etc. The 80's might just have been that decade where Magic and Fantasy become massively popular. At least much of it was original.
The 90's is really where it all went wrong. Sequelitis. Remakes of everything the Baby Boomers grew up on. It became regurgitation for sake of recognition -- IPs became a thing before we had the term. And it hasn't changed much. Hell, they made a franchise out of a Disneyland ride.
Music also suffered in the following decade in much the same way once Napster killed the independents and only corporations could survive. You end up with Boy Bands and Britney knock-offs for a very long time -- all dance shows with little talent. Milli Vanilli were way ahead of their time.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,981
- Reaction score
- 4,932
I posted the article somewhere on these boards before in a similar discussion -- "The Garage Kubrick" by William Gibson, the idea that ever more potent and cheap technology will produce the next great artist from some basement or garage. It's possible but I think the timeline is extended on that thanks to globalization, the world economy and current tech limitations. Plus I'm not altogether sure even Gibson foresaw what the Internet was going to do in terms of unintended and murderously bland consequences.
Internet was supposed to democratize everything, but it produced so much noise we have a bland flattening of content and whole new classes of gatekeepers. There's still some exciting art to be found but it ain't comin' out of Hollywood, that's for sure.
YES! Precisely the above. Its amazing how intent and real-world use never quite line-up. Always the unforeseen.
But I do feel like a resurgence of originality is inevitable for a future generation. The same-old is just that; tiresome. Someone will get the ball rolling. I just wonder if it will seem 'original' to us -- meaning us who have lived through the 80's might just feel like been-there-done-that. An explosion of 'new' will either seem (to us) completely foreign or a repeat of our past. We may be forever jaded.
But I do feel like a resurgence of originality is inevitable for a future generation. The same-old is just that; tiresome. Someone will get the ball rolling. I just wonder if it will seem 'original' to us -- meaning us who have lived through the 80's might just feel like been-there-done-that. An explosion of 'new' will either seem (to us) completely foreign or a repeat of our past. We may be forever jaded.
I think Avatar largely did what you said.
Hollywood: Woohoo! Look at us, something new and original!
Longtime movie fans: Eh, not really....
lol
Well, that may not be the best example if you grew up in the 70's with all those black light posters that looked like Avatar, floating islands an all.
Plus, Cameron's typical blue-collar marine-team repeat. The movie felt like Aliens inside a 70's black-light poster to me... except it was tragically boring.
The idea of the avatar is likely the best thing from that movie (other than the 3D experience). To bad he can't just use that idea for space travel and have all new adventures on other worlds with other life forms.
Similar threads
