DC Universe

[Dan]

Laurence Fishburne joins the cast.

As Perry White.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/08/02/l ... exclusive/

[Randall]

White is black, eh? (Yeah, I know--- extremely obvious joke, but I figured we might a well get it out of the way.)

Fishburne will do a great job. Very solid actor. Hopefully his character is given some scenes worthy of his talents.

[LotsoA113]

First look at Henry Cavill as Superman. Looks neat. Funny thing is though, I thought I hear they were ditching that big S. Huh. Still looks fine though, June 14, 2013 can't get here fast enough

[Dusterian]

I'm glad they aren't ditching the S...I didn't think they could even ditch something that iconic! What else would they have in it's place?

The picture looks great, really quite fantastic! It's a really good indication of what is to come. Only now do I know who the guy looks like, and I think he looks too old for the super perfect, and just-starting out hero. Also, I feel his hair doesn't match the iconic, "is his hair" look, or the time period, if this is supposed to be the time he originally lived in.

[Ben]

First glance...I hated it. Especially the Jon Peters blow-dried hair.

Then I saw a nice hi-res print version and stared at it for ages. I don't like that they overcomplicated the costume, but I'm better with the look. It's not classic, but hopefully the movie will have some of that feeling in spades.

Can't see how they're going to make Clark and Supes look that much different, though, with that hairdo (or hair-don't), and what about the kiss curl?

On the other hand, breaking open/saving a bank vault is very classic, and what a picture to intro the new star...much better than Routh's boring pose. Don't hold out much hope for this being in the movie though...they haven't actually started filming yet, so it's likely for publicity (even if there's a similar situation in the film).

I'm hungry to see more...

[Randall]

There have been shots elsewhere taken of him sporting the spitcurl (at Comic-Con), and that Supes image they did is pretty CGI-heavy, I think, so for now it's just a promo shot, not necessarily a final look.

http://nerdeux.wordpress.com/2011/08/04 ... -spitcurl/

For an early look, it's a good start. At least it's somewhat exciting.

[Dusterian]

Ya know, the missing kiss/spit curl was probably my biggest gripe! But also in general his hair probably needs to be a bit shorter, closer to the head, I dunno. And I still think he should be younger for the very first adventures of a super dude...but maybe he just looks too old since he's only 28, and 28 doesn't sound bad at all (when did Superman "start" being Superman, 25?).

[Randall]

Better shots of Cavill in costume:
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2 ... mans-suit/

I think he looks great, though I also miss the spitcurl. The muscles in the costume look pretty real, and the darker blue works. I like the "S" a great deal. We don't see the cape in these shots, but I've decided I can live without the red shorts and yellow belt. The piping and other ornamentation may not be necessary, but they don't stick out too much, and overall the whole look works for me.

So far, I like the movie costume better than the new comic book version (which looks overly armored), though one obviously inspired the other.

[Ben]

I have to admit to liking the suit more, even from those blurry distant shots. These new stills obviously show off the costume more (I wonder if he does indeed lose the cape or if it's going to be a CG element in some instances?) and while I'm really missing the shorts and - especially - the belt, I like the shape and it still has a classic feel. Just a shame they feel they have to change things just for the sake of them...

[Dacey]

Being totally random here--and probably repeating some of what Ben posted in his recent review--but I watched the Richard Donner cut of "Superman II" for only the second time last night, and have to say that I noticed many more of its problems than I did the first time.

Truth be told, the first time I saw it, I kept saying "this is so cool" to myself almost everytime there was new footage...but I think I was mainly saying that because it was stuff I was seeing for the first time. Don't get me wrong; it's still cool to see, and a lot of it was good. But some of it--such as the screen test of Margot Kidder and Chris Reeve--just doesn't feel "finished" enough to be in an actual film.

Also, Donner seems way too bitter here, getting rid of almost any footage that he didn't shoot. And some of the changes felt like changes just for the sake of having them: For instance, there are takes of Terrance Stamp as Zod saying the exact same lines that he did in the original version...only without his accent! He doesn't sound like Zod at all, creating a terrible inconsistency about the whole thing.

And I'm pretty sure that I remember Ben pointing this out in his review, but the "ending" in which Clark gets back at the jerk in the diner makes no sense whatsoever now because, since he turned back time, he never actually got beat up by that guy! But I'm guessing that since Donner apparently shot it, he figured that he'd better include it, I guess.

All in all, the deleted stuff is cool to see, but again, Donner's rather obvious bitterness towards the original theatrical version 30 years after the fact does kinda annoy me a little. And maybe I wouldn't be saying any of this if so many fans didn't insist on calling this the "official" cut of the movie. But maybe I'm being too harsh.

Anyway, having said all that, I am very much glad to have the alternate cut available, even though I think it could've been much "smoother" as a whole if more of the original feature's footage had been included. But oh well. I'm sorry that this came out of nowhere.

[Randall]

The "Donner Cut" really shouldn't be viewed as an alternate verison of the film, though it's advertised as such. It's really just a bunch of footage that Donner shot, edited as best it could be. It's great to see, and I'm grateful it finally saw the light of day; but it's obviously not a finished film. Advertised as a "better version," it fails. For what it actually is--- more of a bonus feature to the theatrical cut than a standalone film--- I love it.

[EricJ]

The "Donner Cut" really shouldn't be viewed as an alternate verison of the film, though it's advertised as such. It's really just a bunch of footage that Donner shot, edited as best it could be. It's great to see, and I'm grateful it finally saw the light of day; but it's obviously not a finished film. Advertised as a "better version," it fails. For what it actually is--- more of a bonus feature to the theatrical cut than a standalone film--- I love it.

Basically, it answers that annoying eternal question of "Why did Marlon Brando get paid so much for ten minutes in the first film?"
A: Because he was actually paid for appearances in two films....Or so he thought. What we got in the first film turned out to be just an introductory set-up cameo to what would have been his central role in the Donner #2.

And while I'm not a fan of the theatrical version, I can also see why this was abandoned: Superman comes off just way too whiny about wanting his own life.
Donner's direction was better than Richard Lester's for what it was worth, just that one was a good director with no story, the other was a serviceable director with a more commercial story.

[Ben]

Yep, like I said in the review: Brando was never paid $3m just for ten minutes, and the Donner Cut is a very, very nice bonus feature...but a bonus feature it is nonetheless.

[ShyViolet]

(Rumor) Child actor chosen for young Clark Kent:

http://www.supermansupersite.com/11281216.html

[ShyViolet]

Possible earlier release? (From June 2013 to December 2012)

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=10646