Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Keanu Reeves as Superman 531

Posted by chrisd
from the strange-things-are-afoot-at-the-circle-k dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Keanu Reeves as Superman

Comments Filter:
  • by rosewood (99925) <rosewood.chat@ru> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:12PM (#4258722) Homepage Journal
    Woah

  • Some schmuck from Warner Bros. must've been smoking something when watching the final scene in The Matrix.

    Neo zooms off into the sky with the coat flapping like a cape and the lightbulb goes off. Hey! He looks just like Superman!

    Say... there's an idea!

    NOT!
  • by Rob.Mathers (527086) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:12PM (#4258727) Homepage
    Maybe they'll create a new super-character! Think about it, SuperNeo would have no weaknesses! "There is no kryptonite."
  • Didn't you see tbe last movie were he FLEW at up into the sky after emerging from the telephone booth?
  • Can anyone second the opinion that at least he wouldn't be as bad as the other proposed Man of Steel - Nicholas Cage? (Hey at least Reeves has hair...)

  • Well I also heard that Colin Farrell is playing Batman in the n....

    Hey! This isn't aintitcoolnews! what the....?

    (seriously, why is this story here...?)

  • title says it all
  • SCrew that... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BLAG-blast (302533)
    Christopher Reeve is getting better!!! [cnn.com] Let him play superman, when he's a little more better of course....

    • Wow...!

      According to the article he's able to even walk in a pool! Uhm.. I think he should be taken to the moon, perhaps there we could walk.. :)
  • by falloutboy (150069) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:16PM (#4258755)
    Keaton had a dark psychosis to him... a perfect fit for the Dark Knight.


    Clooney and Kilmer were both absolutely wrong for that role. The only redeeming thing about the franchise after Tim Burton left was the set design in the one with Schwarzenegger.


    And, to stay on topic, I agree that Keanu Reeves is just wrong for this role.

  • by checkitout (546879) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:17PM (#4258762)
    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..

  • Well, Keanu Reeves DID leap ACROSS tall buildings in a single bound. I guess that qualifies him...
  • Keaton (Score:4, Interesting)

    by skroz (7870) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:18PM (#4258766) Homepage
    Hey, wait a minute... I _LIKED_ keaton as batman! The first (OK, not first, but you know what I mean) movie was by far the best of the lot. Of course, that could be attributed to Nicholson...

  • Heaven help us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rhysweatherley (193588) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:18PM (#4258767)
    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.

    • by swankypimp (542486) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @08:06PM (#4258988) Homepage
      It works if Bill S. Preston, Esquire, plays Jimmy Olson, who, in a major plot twist, turns into an arch-villain. Makes for a good plot, since I always found Alex Winter pretty funny. In a well-conceived parallel plot, the talented sidekick ends up with nothing while his handsome, affably stupid "buddy" gets the girl/money/fame. This turns Alex/Jimmy e-vil, and he begins plotting Super Ted's downfall... "I have way lots of kryptonite, you futuristic dick-weed! Time to die, Super Dude!"
  • huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mad Quacker (3327) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:19PM (#4258772) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:huh? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Octal (310)
      I think you're forgetting about Adam West.
      • Adam West would have made a better Superman than Batman. He played a campy do-gooder. The only edge he had was playing a good strategist and detective, but that's not something you have time for in a movie. Remember, Batman was a psychotic vigilante who had a nearly split personality.

        The Batman that Adam West portrayed was the neutered Batman of that 1950's. That was not Batman. That Batman didn't even hav a dark side, let alone the borderline personality.

        BlackGriffen
    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peale (9155) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:38PM (#4258874) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • Here we go (Score:5, Interesting)

    by starseeker (141897) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:19PM (#4258775) Homepage
    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.)
  • because he has charisma, that's why. lots and lots of charisma. I'm sure he can play a just as over-the-top and goofy superman as christopher reeve di-Oh Wait! they have the same last name! that's why they picked Keanu - he's the son of superman!

  • I don't know how well built Reeves (oh, just an extra 's' on the end, another 'studio' connection for him being in the role)... but wouldn't he have to a bit of 'beefing up' for the Superman role, I mean doing martial arts is one thing, but the Superman role has always been a case of filling as much of the lycra suit with as much muscle as possible.

    Is this possibly the worse fit for an actor in a superhero role since Michael Keaton in Batman?

    OK then, who was the best Batman then? out of the original series and the films? I honestly think Keaton was the better one of the films... but then the first two films were really Tim Burton driven (very dark and gothic) and much better than the rest. Plus who can forget Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman.. meeeow indeed!!

  • Michael Keaton would be a horrible Batman, but I think he surprised people. He played it with a dark subtlety fitting to Frank Miller's vision.

    Now, he didn't have the chisled features of comic book hero, but who does? Maybe Val Kilmer, who wasn't nearly as good, in my opinion.

    I also think that Keanu Reeves' bad reputation as an actor is not really deserved. He doesn't show great range, but he does have a certain presence and magnetism. Reminds me of Clark Gable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:27PM (#4258813)
    Instead of kryptonite, his enemies will just use big words to stop him.
  • was Bill. Or was he Ted? Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

    The one thing about the Matrix was that I was expecting him to break into air guitar during every scene.

    • Perhaps that says more about you, than him... did you really like bill and teds crappy adventures?

      I don't hate Keanu that much, but I hate crappy movies. I also like Brad Pitt, and in each of his movies he has played pretty much the same character... in the few movies I saw him in, anyway. Same for Keanu. Some actors don't seem to have a lot of range. So what!
  • George, Christopher, now Keanu. Superman must be played only by Reeves, even if by an Hawaiian one.

    And I think Keaton was the best Batman too, and I'm not a Keaton fan.

  • I protest Keanu (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ghoser777 (113623) <fahrenba@[ ].com ['mac' in gap]> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:36PM (#4258861) Homepage
    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
  • as mentioned on the above referring article [foxnews.com], a batman vs superman [mtv.com] movie is currently being worked on. how ironic if the poster of this /. article (M.C. Hampster) didn't realize that in making that comparison.

    ..and if you understood the "real" batman, not the Adam West-inspired ones, you would know that Michael Keaton's version was by far the closest to home. batman is a dark and angry man, whose purpose is to scare the shit out of criminals. that first scene with batman holding the punk over the edge of the roof is classic batman.
  • by pgrote (68235) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:48PM (#4258918) Homepage
    His psycho bent on it was fantastic. Who did you prefer? VAL KILMER? GEORGE CLOONEY? Please ...
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @07:48PM (#4258920) Journal
    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.
    • by Reziac (43301) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @11:09PM (#4259608) Homepage Journal
      Translation pretty good, compare to http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/13/10316083 26069.html

      Nerve injuries CAN recover, but continued stimulus is a big key. Real life case: Several decades ago my uncle was trapped under an upended road grader for several hours, while acid dripped from the battery onto his elbow. Ate a hole in his hide and completely destroyed the main nerve that controls everything from elbow to fingertips. Even after the acid burn healed, he had no feeling or motion in the hand or forearm AT ALL, and was not really expected to regain any use of it.

      After 9 months of daily stimulus (mainly massage, with some forced exercise by moving the arm and hand around manually) he began regaining use of the limb. Within a few more months he had full use of the hand again.

      At the time (this was ca. 1967) some progressive doctors believed that if sufficiently stimulated, severed nerves would regrow at a rate of about an inch per month. Which is roughly consistent with my uncle's experience. (Also with my own experience when I severed the nerve in my thumb. Took about a month to regain feeling in the tip.)

      And you're right. Christopher Reeve will be Superman forever, the one and only.

      • by nettdata (88196)
        I can agree from first-hand experience.

        I went to University on a rugby scholarship, and played for years. In '97 I had what is commonly reffered to as a "carreer-ending injury" where my right knee was dislocated by about 5 inches, quite effectively ripping 3/4 of the ligaments in my knee completely apart, and severing the nerve that services the lower right side of my leg and all the muscles on the top of my right foot.

        I went to the hospital, had it examined, and was told that it was a sprain... "don't worry about it, come back in a week if it's still bugging you".

        One week later, I still couldn't lift my foot or feel anything in my leg. So, I went to a specialist.

        Long story short, it was one of the "cleanest" (as in no blood, it was as if it was surgically damaged) and most destructive knee injuries they've ever seen. The nerve damage was too old to repair, and after many visits to many neurosurgeons, they all agreed that I'd be lucky to regain 60% usage in 10 years.

        Now, I was a pretty active guy... mountain biking every day, rugby 4 times a week, gymn twice a day, so I was in pretty good shape.

        They gave me these rehab "protocols" that must have been written for couch-sitting housewives..."the 4 week goal is to bend the knee 25 degrees with minimal pain". Give me a break! I'd done that in 2 days! I threw them away and proceded to do what I could on my own... completing 6 months of protocols in about 3 weeks. The physio guys were blown away, and while concerned, couldn't see anything bad happening. I continued mountain biking, walked to exhaustion, always pushing myself but not to the point of further damage. I was wearing out the "protective" brace every 3 weeks and having to have it replaced (which they said I'd have to wear for the rest of my life, BTW).

        I should take a second here to really thank my orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Ross!)... he took the time to show me how to perform basic examinations on my knee and leg, teaching me the signs to look for, and allowing me to monitor my progress. It really helped me guage the amount of exertion I could apply and when I should stop. It was REALLY refreshing to NOT get the whole "well, you're not a doctor, so you wouldn't understand, so I'm not going to teach you" attitude.

        After a year and a half, I'd regained a LOT of use of the damaged nerves... I still remember the day that I could lift my foot up for the first time (the guys at work thought I was nuts when I started jumping around and yelling and screaming!).

        3 years and 4 knee surgeries after the injury, I could run somewhat normally on the knee (I was never a great runner to begin with!), was practicing rugby, mountain biking normally, and playing other sports... all without the brace. The biggest damage I had was psychological.

        I went back to the neurosurgeons who initially examined me, and said "hey, can you retest me?" and they were quite shocked to see that I'd recovered to be about 90-95% of what is normal.

        Now, I am what I consider to be 100% recovered; same weights in the gymn, playing rugby again without a brace (not as competitive, but I'm old and lazy now ;), and on the mornings that I wake up with knee pain, it usually takes me a couple of minutes to realize that it's the "good" knee! It's almost like they rebuilt the bad one better than the original. :)

        So, at the end of the day, and after doing a LOT of research on my own in the local medical libraries, I found that neurologists really don't understand SQUAT about nerve regeneration, and I tend not to believe any limitations they want to put on them. I threw away their advice of relying on a brace for the rest of my life and "taking it easy", and I'm glad I did.

  • According to this article at Superhero Hype [superherohype.com], the Reeves thing is just a rumor and not actually true--though all the article really has is hearsay, so it's hard to say whether it is or not. There's a an interview with Brett Ratner [latinoreview.com] in Latino Review, where he mentions he wants Anthony Hopkins for Jor-El, but he doesn't mention Keanu there.
  • Keaton might not have been the best choice for Batman, but the producers quickly remedied their mistake by casting a couple of even-worse actors for the role, Val Kilmer and George Clooney both sucked really bad as Batman. While I'm at it, I think the series also went to hell when they took Tim Burton off; Schumacher's visual style is completely opposite to the great, dark atmosphere Burton had created on the first two films.

  • Then again, that's what everyone said about Tobey McGuire as Spiderman.

    According the rumors, the script does the whole origin story. Keanu might be a good fit for a Superman just starting out.
  • Well, Whoa-man is probably at least better than Nicolas Cage, who was previously on board the project.

    http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/superman5.ht ml [corona.bc.ca]

    Cheers
    -b

    • Speaking of Coming Attractions, the bottom of the parent's linked page [corona.bc.ca] aims to put kibash on the Keanu rumor:

      Latino Review also claims that they spoke to another journalist at the press event who said he asked Ratner if there was any truth to the rumor that Keanu Reeves will play Superman. According to the story LR reported, Ratner told the journalist it's false.

      It's hearsay, but, really, the Keanu rumor doesn't sound terribly likely. (Then again, Nick Cage was connected to the thing at one time, so who knows?)

  • Ok. Here goes...

    Keanu Reeves is a pretty good actor, so long as he's in a cyberpunk movie. Most of my friends and I agree that the man has no talent outside of this realm (Think Don John in Much Ado About Nothing). However, when placed in the Matrix, or Jonnie Mnemonic, he actually does a pretty good job. The reason is simple. He's adept at playing spacy young iconoclasts, which pretty much describes every cyberpunk role he's had.

    Of course, this means he's going to completely fuck up the role of Superman.

    Offtopic: Keaton was the best fucking batman EVER. Possibly the best cast superhero ever, though I'm rooting for Nick Cage to kick his ass in the upcoming Ghost Rider. (Who else would you pick as better? Dolf Lundgren in The Punisher? LMFAO).
  • This is awesome. Time to stock up on weed.
  • Why pick on Keanu? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vanyel (28049) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @08:19PM (#4259045) Journal
    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.
    • Wow.. You made me actaully try and think of Sean Connery as Superman.. Superman w/ a british accent.. That would be...... Umm.. Cool? Or how about a Superman w/ 007 type toys? Hmmmm..
    • What makes Keanu a worse actor than say Sean Connery?

      Good point.

      Acting is an artificial thing. And conventions change. Consider Burt Lancaster or Kirk Douglas. Those guys had particularly scenery-chewing styles -- especially when they were young.

      Conventions change.

      Speed wasn't his only good performance. Didn't he do a good job in Devil's Advocate?

    • Since when is dumb jock a "style"?
    • by IHateEverybody (75727) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:58PM (#4259561) Homepage Journal
      I think that the Self-Made Critic put it best in his review [brunching.com] of The Matrix:

      Any review of a Keanu movie must start with Keanu himself. Basically, just how bad is he in this one?

      Is he playing a role that adeptly hides how unbelievably horrible he is (Parenthood, the Bill and Ted movies)? Or is he playing a role that broadcasts his complete and utter lameness for all to see(everything else)?

      Actually, there is a third class of Keanu films. These are films that are so packed with other distractions - explosions, car chases, semi-naked hotties - that Keanu is given little actual acting to do. These movies include Speed... and... and ... did I mention Speed?

      Well you can slap The Matrix into that third category. Keanu is so buried in effects and gunfire that he has little to do other than pose. And he poses pretty well.
  • Superman: "whoaaaaaaaaa" (in a grimacing about to die way)
  • keaton pulled off the whole batman thing better than anyone else has, or will (considering the current crop of stars out there) precisely because he pulled off the whole 'brooding spoiled brat who has his life thrown askew by the murder of his parents' when no one else could come close.

    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.

  • noone suggest Wil Wheaton.
  • We're talking about Hollywood here. They don't give a damn about such extraneous things as "character depth" or "plot development," all they want are what they consider to be sex symbols running around in skin-tight outfits. It's what brings in the money.

    If you want a decent Superman, turn on Cartoon Network. You should know better by now to seek him at the movie theaters.
  • i've said this before and i'll say it again. the next superman can only be Bruce Campbell.

    no arguements.

    there is no equal.

    keanu reeves????? wtf??????
  • Keanu? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kaz Riprock (590115) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:35PM (#4259503)
    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 [imdb.com].

  • by Dan Crash (22904) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @02:00AM (#4260073) Journal
    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.)

  • by AJWM (19027) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @02:58AM (#4260156) Homepage
    ..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. ;)

Forty two.

Working...