Now let's talk about how to replace Superman?

[choptop]

No offense to Cavil but he's not RDJ as Iron Man or Chris Evans as Cap, recasting's no big deal.

Recasting Ironman and Cap isn't really a big deal either it's going to happen sooner or later.

[Midvillian1322]

Recasting Ironman and Cap isn't really a big deal either it's going to happen sooner or later.

Way later then Canvill I'm willing to bet. Though with the multiverse we could see an alternate Steve and Tony. But the main timeline version are off limits untill the MCU reboots which I'm betting will be no time soon. I dont even know if they would bring in alternate versions of these characters. Marvel still has plenty of other characters to go through

[AJBopp]

However, due to Helen Slater's beauty, I truly like to see Supergirl on screen. She is the most beautiful superheroine I've ever seen.

Um...why would you think they'll give Supergirl a movie during the stretch of time they won't give Superman a movie? Or are you saying you'd rather Supergirl be relegated to just cameo roles if that's all that's on the table?

I believe answered all you need to know about his thoughts on the matter.

[Slowpokeking]

Um...why would you think they'll give Supergirl a movie during the stretch of time they won't give Superman a movie? Or are you saying you'd rather Supergirl be relegated to just cameo roles if that's all that's on the table?

https://heroichollywood.com/rumor-dc...ergirl-update/

Even if there is no Supergirl solo movie, she would be a good choice to take the supporting role that Henry didn't want to take.

[j9ac9k]

I think Cavill is fine. They just need a good script that doesn't keep retreading the same territory and gives him a chance to lighten up - show us that Clark Kent can be a well-rounded, totally relatable man.

[SiegePerilous02]

Cavill got the rawest deal of the DCEU cast by far. He's more enthusiastic about the character and gets him better than I feel anybody else at the company, and while he's hardly the best actor in the world, I think his range fits the character provided the direction and material benefits him.

I want a well done Superman film period, so a recasting wouldn't be a big deal if it had to happen. The character is bigger than any actor. I want WB to put out Superman movies when they want to and have a plan, but it seems like they never do for this character. The love to use the brand to make money, but are apathetic to Clark himself which totally sucks.

I like Kara but she really isn't.

I love Kara and view her as a vital supporting player...but at the end of the day, that's what she is. She's a spin off character using the brand to boost her recognition (she literally has his logo slapped on her chest), she's not the central figure. And she's gone through even more reboots and versions than him so she's less defined as a character to be more interesting. So I while I think getting them on screen together would be great for both characters, as a full blown replacement for him without any interaction wouldn't work. Her sub-property has very little of its own stuff to fall back on to stand on its own anyway, so they'd have to poach Clark's stuff. The main Supergirl to have her own unique mythos is the Linda Danvers version, and that's all so weird and disconnected to the Super mythos that it is unlikely they would ever adapt it.

[Slowpokeking]

I love Kara and view her as a vital supporting player...but at the end of the day, that's what she is. She's a spin off character using the brand to boost her recognition (she literally has his logo slapped on her chest), she's not the central figure. And she's gone through even more reboots and versions than him so she's less defined as a character to be more interesting. So I while I think getting them on screen together would be great for both characters, as a full blown replacement for him without any interaction wouldn't work. Her sub-property has very little of its own stuff to fall back on to stand on its own anyway, so they'd have to poach Clark's stuff. The main Supergirl to have her own unique mythos is the Linda Danvers version, and that's all so weird and disconnected to the Super mythos that it is unlikely they would ever adapt it.

Which is why I think she would be a good choice for the current situation.

[Soubhagya]

I fully understand why Henry wants to quit. There was no future plan in short time for the character and Superman kinda limited his career choice.

It's not the first time that Superman being replaced by another actor, it happened in Superboy and Superman Returns. But I have another idea, maybe let Supergirl replace him? So we won't have to deal with the audience get confused or dislike the new Superman. There is a Kara El in DCEU prequel comic as the ancestor.


My choice of cast is Elizabeth Debicki. She's a tall, pretty figure and could act well.

Its fine that you want a Supergirl film. But this isn't replacing Cavill. Its bringing in a diffferent character. Now if they want a different character. And they want to rest Clark Kent for a while, i would prefer Calvin Ellis played by Michael B Jordan.



Jordan is a wonderful actor. Calvin is a really cool character. And you can have a multiverse of Supermen if you want to do unconventional things with Superman. If Sony had the rights to Superman they would have tried a Superman cinematic universe for sure. Or even an animated Superverse.

It sucks to see that WB apparently has no plans for Superman apart from cameos and/or Supergirl. I would have welcomed Supergirl with open arms if Clark Kent was rocking in his films too. I would be happy if they can do that by having Superman co star in Supergirl. By having Superman play a sort of mentor and family to Supergirl they can 'reintroduce' Superman. They can even have Cavill play his more 'hopeful' version.

And if they want Supergirl, get someone younger. Like Tom Holland in Spider-man films. Its realistic that a high school kid names himself Spider-man. But a 22-25 year old woman calling herself Supergirl isn't realistic enough, even in a world where people can't tell that Clark Kent looks a lot like Superman. Plus, if Supergirl really works you can get her play the role for a long time.

[Totoro Man]

Debicki looks great, is tall, and seems to be a pretty good actor.... but she's closing in on 30 years old. a bit... too old to be a 'Supergirl'. I could see her making a great Amazon, or perhaps Harbinger... but Supergirl? nah.

Cavill had bad luck with Supes. he got some bogus scripts and saddled with a director who was a bad fit for the character. well, if he's not going to be Supes maybe he could play Sterling Archer and Aisha Tyler could play Lana Kane (yeah, I know, it'll never happen. but I can dream, right?)

[Slowpokeking]

Debicki looks great, is tall, and seems to be a pretty good actor.... but she's closing in on 30 years old. a bit... too old to be a 'Supergirl'. I could see her making a great Amazon, or perhaps Harbinger... but Supergirl? nah.

Cavill had bad luck with Supes. he got some bogus scripts and saddled with a director who was a bad fit for the character. well, if he's not going to be Supes maybe he could play Sterling Archer and Aisha Tyler could play Lana Kane (yeah, I know, it'll never happen. but I can dream, right?)

FACT: Debicki is 2 years younger than Melissa Benoist.

[Hypestyle]

people are so reactionary it's silly.

Recasting is going to cause another unnecessary super-controversy. Plus all the people who say that Cavill needs to go are going to start immediately carping on who gets the nod next, starting online petitions and what not.

We'll see what happens, but it's going to be ugly, regardless.

[Jim Kelly]

Howabout making a really good animated Superman as a feature-length theatrical movie, instead of straight to video?

[AJBopp]

Howabout making a really good animated Superman as a feature-length theatrical movie, instead of straight to video?

You could possibly do that in addition to a live action feature, but it doesn't get you very far doing that instead of a live action feature, when you are trying to build a shared universe (and generate the money doing that successfully gets you).

The bottom line is, everyone - studios, actors, audiences, fans - need to get over the idea that characters cannot be recast without breaking continuity. Ultimately, it's a self-destructive view that cannot be maintained more than about 15 years. Which effectively puts a hard limit on the durability of your shared universe.

We can all hope the MCU can continue on without Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, but really it's not very likely to, any more than the DCU is likely to gain very much traction without Superman and Batman. We've already recast Batman, just do the same thing with Superman and move on for gods sake. It doesn't mean you have to recast Wonder Woman and Aquaman, or give them different stories, any more than recasting James Bond means that M and Q have to be totally different too.

[Jim Kelly]

Is the goal to create a shared universe or to build up Superman's reputation as a solid character in the film world? It should be that both goals can be accomplished together, but it seems like WB's desire to create a shared universe has undermined Superman rather than building him up. Sony having an award-winning, box office smash animated movie for Spider-Man probably helps it fend off Kevin Feige taking over the Spidey movies completely.

Since the declared goal of WB at the moment is to do good stand alone movies, that don't all need to exist in the same shared universe, then I think it's a lot easier to create an animated movie rather than the beast that a Superman live action film has become. They don't need to worry so much about actors and they can create visuals that fit the cosmic nature of Superman. And they already have the talent to do good animation. Maybe with a successful animated movie in theatres, that could go a long way to rehabilitating the image of Superman in the minds of audiences. Making it easier to do more live action pictures eventually.

[AJBopp]

Is the goal to create a shared universe or to build up Superman's reputation as a solid character in the film world? It should be that both goals can be accomplished together, but it seems like WB's desire to create a shared universe has undermined Superman rather than building him up. Sony having an award-winning, box office smash animated movie for Spider-Man probably helps it fend off Kevin Feige taking over the Spidey movies completely.

Incredibles 2 might have been a better comparison. Spiderverse really didn't do all that well, all things considered, less than $400 million worldwide.

I don't really think it's going to be possible to successfully "rehabilitate" Superman without doing a well-done live action film. No matter what you do on the animated side, audiences aren't really going to believe that Superman can be done well in live action until it's done well in live action.

Ithink WB makes it a lot harder on themselves than they need to. Everytime a new live action film comes out (or shortly thereafter) there's always these stories that circulate, mostly credible, about how to make the character relevant. Make him a robot, give him a black costume, make him human and not Kryptonian, etc. In the last instance it was make him dark and unpleasant and do a 4-film character arc to change him into something brighter. Bleh.

For whatever reason, the people ponying up the money to actually produce the films have no confidence in the character (they don't really have any confidence in Batman either, but for whatever reason the Nolan re-imagining worked for him - the Snyder version not so much). This is the underlying, most fundamental, reason the DCU failed.

Look what happened when they had confidence in Wonder Woman.

And to return to the thread topic, this lack of confidence is also why we should have no reason to expect Supergirl would make us happy, either.