Keanu Reeves as Superman 531
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.
Uh......Michael Keaton (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, I thought Keaton rocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Heaven help us (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this "mistake" is as bad as batman, I'll be first in line for the theater.
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [grantham.de]
Superman's race (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would he be white? He was created by two jewish guys as a continuation of the golem myth (protecting the weak and all that), with some resonance of Nietchze thrown in.
Re:Actually, I thought Keaton rocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keaton was by far the most believable and best-acted Batman of the bunch.
AFA Superman - I can't envision any actor other than Christopher Reeve in that role. But Keanu is an absolutely terrible idea.
sedawkgrep
Neo as Superman???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, and Tim Burton used to do the directing...
I protest Keanu (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dual personalities at their best.
Keaton was the best Batman. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why pick on Keanu? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh......Michael Keaton (Score:4, Insightful)
Keaton was the greatest, and here's why (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Keaton did rock (Score:5, Insightful)
Keanu as superman though? I think that's a hell of a reach.
What Keaton got Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Keaton portrayed someone who was damaged. You could see in him someone who was uncomfortable dealing with the niceties of his high society surroundings, someone who knew that there was a dark thing writhing in the city that could only be fought against by something equally dark. The other players of Batman treated him as a one dimensional heroic figure.
I thought the first Batman movie was excellent. If only Jack had been 20 years younger he would have been the perfect Joker. He still pulled off a fine job.
The second movie introduced some nearly over-the-top performances (Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken) that seemed to give permission to the people who produced the next couple of movies to return to the campiness of the television series. The formula that is the theme of Batman (person is emotionally and physically wounded, person puts on a mask and exacts revenge on the rest of the world) is made truely formulamatic in the last few films. Tim Burton realized that such a formula could be made into camp unless you had actors with depth who could flesh out the struggle of dual persona. That is where Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Michelle Pfeiffer succeeded.
Keanu? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, I think they should use Chris Klein [imdb.com].
Re:Keaton was a GOOD batman... (Score:2, Insightful)
Superman is a different story. The custome doesn't really hide the physical appearance, or at least not as much as Batman's. Although, he might be able to pull off Clark, if he stay's away from his catch phase!
How times have changed. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
They should just wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I'm curious about how and when Chloe Sullivan changes her name to Lois Lane.
Re:Actually, I thought Keaton rocked. (Score:4, Insightful)