Brandon Routh Back As Superman After All?

Comment on “Brandon Routh Back As Superman After All?”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Aaron Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 13:00

   Did you happen to see the retraction from Latino Review? Another reason I say they are spreading false rumors is because of there source. DC comics in no way have a say on who plays Superman. All they are there for is to help with the Mythology. Since WB owns the right to the films they are the ones to make that decision. And like I said they were impressed by Routh's Superman.

1. JoshT Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 13:02

   There is no retraction at LR. Merely a report of the information on AICN. The same info we're reporting here.

1. Richard Brunton Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 13:03

   I never leapt on the bandwagon on this rumour because the original story stated very clearly that Brandon Routh would not be the next Superman on screen in the Justice League film. Well we all knew that, what's the surprise there, and how did that lead to the shouts of Routh won't be in the Superman sequel?
   
   Let's face it, the sequel is in such early development that we don't know who is going to be on it.
   
   The original article that sparked off the "no Singer" screams also attributed his non-inclusion to his busy schedule, yet looking at the dates the chances are that the Superman sequel won't be starting until after Singer is finished his current production run anyway.
   
   The studio have said before that there would be no sequel until after JLA and with the strike delaying the script, that could be a long wait.

1. ruminating Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 13:03

   Eh I still think he's gone. Warner Bros. seems to be doing that slow death thing. First the writers, then the director, and finally the actors are let go before announcing the reboot after a "respectful" pause. Drip, drip, drip. The slow bleed of news lets fans get used to the idea and everybody saves face.
   
   WB will probably give Routh a role in a small movie, making a big announcement of it. Then a few days later, quietly release the news that since he was now too "busy" to do a Superman movie, they've gone in another direction. Everybody looks good. Routh, Singer, the writers, they're all "busy, sought after, hot commodities" (and can hopefully sell that sizzle to future employers) and WB isn't the bad guy, but is instead the sad stood up date, who must reluctantly find a new beau.
   
   It's all for the best really. Routh was pleasant, but bland and forgettable. He had no edge. Even nice guy Superman needs to emanate spark and excitement.

1. JoshT Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 13:05

   Edge??? I'm really tired of people trying to turn Superman into Batman.

1. Aaron Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 14:43

   Then what do you call it? I see what was stated on the site as a retraction. Why else would they even had reported it if the had such a strong source at DC?
   
   They were trying to ride the coat tails of another reporter. They took a comment that had nothing to do with Routh being superman and tried to make it look like they broke the story first. Even if there wasn't a story in the first place. The guy even admitted to be new at this.

1. JoshT Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 14:45

   I would call it them adding additional information from another perspective. Maybe I'm looking at something different though, because what I saw was not stated as a retraction.
   
   Hey LR is not my site, I have absolutely no connection with LR, so I have no idea why I'm even defending them. It just seems a little unfair to accuse them of what you're accusing them of.

1. DC Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 15:06

   Superman Returns was nothing but trying to turn Superman into Batman. Superman isn't brooding Batman, all angsty, alone and alienated. He is a mostly happy, well adjusted guy, surrounded by friends and family, and beloved by the public. Singer's movie was a strange hybrid creature, of stuffing Bruce Wayne into the Superman suit and giving him Christopher Reeve face lift. Superman shouldn't have to be stuffed into the superbrooding Batman mold to make him marketable.
   
   Teenagers aren't just about emo brooding, and "Does she like me" drama. They'll embrace a boyscout in a loving relationship, if given a good story to hang it on. But Singer (and Hollywood in general) is just too lazy to figure out that story. It was easier to sell a Batman version of Superman.

1. JoshT Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 15:07

   Wow, I'm pretty sure you didn't actually see the movie. Turning him into Batman? Seriously? It couldn't have been more the opposite of that. The vocal minority STILL bitching about it are mostly bitching because they WANTED him turned into Batman.

1. DC Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 17:26

   Batman = action in your mind? Strange.
   
   Superman movies can't have action because that would be wanting him to be Batman? That's certainly a unique point of view Josh.
   
   Batman has always been the brooding, angsty, loner one. The very opposite of Superman. But Singer turned Superman into that. Superman fans in general were very unhappy with that distortion of character.
   
   It is interesting to note that the biggest fans of Singer's movie aren't self-described comic book or Superman fans. They always say Singer made an arty, "mature", darker movie and made them care about a character that they previously disdained. Faithful comic and Superman fans were given the shaft. The action-oriented boyscout was deemed too uncool to film. Batman broodiness is easy. Script writers and directors love that tone.

1. JoshT Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 17:29

   Who said anything about action? Not me. Though Chris Nolan could certainly learn a few lessons from Bryan Singer on how to shoot it.
   
   Again, I don't think you watched the movie. The movie I saw did not have Superman as a brooding loner, instead it had a guy hopelessly in love with a woman he desperately wants to be with. A guy who loves his parents, and arrives on Earth and goes straight to his Mom's house.
   
   Maybe you've confused Superman Returns with Batman Begins.

1. Matt Says:
   January 7th, 2008 at 21:00

   DC, I am a "faithful comic and superman fan" and i don't feel like i was given any shaft. I think you just like to complain. I think the worst part of Superman Returns was actually Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex. Superman was pretty good, and I would love Singer and Routh to be a part of the sequel. If you wanna talk about "the shaft", then let's talk about how 3 main characters in the 3rd X-Men were ignorantly killed off. What a waste.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)