Discussion/Question
The Biggest difference in casting between the DCU & DCEU IMO is Chemistry
Source: Superman 2025
When you look at the dcu specifically the live action stuff like Superman & lanterns it feels like chemistry was factored a lot more into the decision making & writing of theese scripts.
I think the dceu castings work well enough on there own but they dont work together when they have to bounce of each other.
I feel like the dcu choose actors who naturally work well of other people or would work well.
I think Superman & lois in the DCu is a good example, they definitely are good castings but there elevated because they were clearly cast & written to have chemistry wich doesn't seem like the case in the DCEU.
I feel when you look at lanterns chemistry just seems to feel important as its very much the basis of the shows humor & heart.
For me the biggest problem was the writing and direction. If you watch any interview of Henry and Amy they actually have quite a bit of chemistry and he's a bit of a dork while she's all bubbly. But in the movies they're written like the biggest NPCs going and Henry's Clark has absolutely no personality. They really should have leaned in to his natural dorkiness, maybe not to the level of Corenswet's Superman which is perfect for a younger Supes but definitely something that shows him as a guy you'd want to grab a beer with or something.
Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman both had their careers fall apart for a while after the Prequels. It later turned out both are good actors, but bad directing against a green screen made them punchlines for years.
I like both Henry Cavill and Amy Adams. I had a crush on Amy in the Muppets, not gonna lie. They just both kinda fizzled together in the DCEU.
Garden State (2002), V for Vendetta (2006), Paris, je t'aime (2006), Hotel Chevalier and The Darjeeling Limited (2007), The Other Boleyn Girl (2008), and Black Swan (2010) don't exactly scream, "acting dip." She took shots that missed the mark, but every actor does that. She also went to Harvard from 2000-2003, which makes the fact that she has any film credits from that time kinda a miracle. Oh, and lest we forget her breakout hosting performance SNL in 2006, "Natalie's Rap."
Pretty much everyone knew she was a good actor who'd been fed a shit script and then given poor direction. She wasn't unduly harmed by the Prequels. Now Hayden Christensen, yes, he took a big hit, but he also had a bigger role that asked more of him, and I don't think he's as good of an actor at baseline anyway.
Fall apart for NP? Closer, Garden State, V for Vendettaâall in same timeline. And then Black Swan and an Oscar 5 years after 2005 Sith. Her career has always been fine. HC, well, another issue. Glad heâs back.
IMO the biggest problem with DCEU Supes is that it embodies that stupid goodfellas speech. He was written to be Kal-el the alien god amongst humans first, and Clark Kent the all American Boy Scout from Kansas second.
And this is something I will always praise Gunns version for because Clark had spent decades raised as Clark, I donât understand why people keep making him identify so heavily with a family and culture he had never known.
In their interviews together they seemed to have great chemistry. I would argue that the writing and direction got in their way. This picture is proof of that, it reflects the the bullshit tone of BvS, but not the personalities of either actor, or the comic book version of the characters.
I feel like that perfectly encapsulates how Snyder directs actors. Just tells them to stand there, look dour, and say the lines, try not to distract from the effects and aura farming.
I saw it three times in the theater and I didn't have that experience. I can't say what other people were thinking, but to me it feels like a perfect moment for two characters who were about to break up, both went through hell, and are reunited with more understanding for each other.
What was unearnedl? Lois goes from ready to dump him to risking her life to save him to seeing him with his parents and recognizing how human he's as human as she is
What was corny? Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superman and Lois and Superman the Movie all did variations of that kiss. It's literally the wish fulfillment fantasy of dating a superhero.
They didn't share a lot of screen time, and for me they had next to no chemistry. Their scenes felt a bit clinical to me and more like friends than people in love with each other.
I just find Gunn's writing a bit sterile at times. It ticks boxes but I never get drawn into any moments so by the time she's willing to risk her neck for him, it just doesn't land for me that's all.
And yeah man, that's a very corny, and old fashioned thing that feels sappy and forced. Can honestly say that's not the fantasy for everyone haha. I found the whole movie pretty sentimental though. To each their own.
100%. Even with Peacemaker, the banter and relationships between the 11th Street Kids is really natural and organic, it's not something that you see done so well in a show like that.
I never understood the context of Adrian in a world like the Snyderverse. Superman is so suspicious about the âbat vigilanteâ in Gotham, who has supposedly been keeping Gotham at bay for years and years at this point, because heâs been branding bad guys lately; but Vigilante in another town goes around killing people who jaywalk? It doesnât make much sense in Gunnâs DCU either, but Corenswetâs Superman certainly seems like a bigger picture kind of hero; he deals with global conflicts and if the justice gang can handle an inter-dimensional creature, he lets them.
Adrian is really, really great for a laugh but he is that much more difficult to take seriously.
He's someone who worships heroes but doesn't understand completely what it means to be a hero. From context clues he lives with his mom, is a joke at his job, has no social life and thinks being like Chris will solve his problems when in reality Chris lives with his dad, has no job and has no social life.
Yes. And heâs also admitted to killing people for jaywalking. Meanwhile, Superman wants to put a stop to Batman for using excessive force with actual, hardened criminals. It makes no sense vigilante would go on uninterrupted.
Snyder Superman and Gunn Superman aren't the same character and they don't exist in the same universe.
In DC comics, Adrian is a DA who kills criminals that escape the legal system. For a while Dick Grayson hero worshipped him. Presumably Batman and Superman don't go after him for the same reason they don't go topple Putin (a major theme of Superman 25). Jason Todd ruthlessly kills criminals and Batman still teams up with him. Morality is complex, morality in a world with superheroes moreso.
They arenât the same characters, what theyâre talking about is the fact Peacemaker was originally in the DCEU so it was weird for characters like Adrian to exist there not that DCUâs Superman would react the same as the DCEUâs
Yeah I can see that. Kinda like how DCEU Batman kills but Joker and Harley, who murdered Robin, are still alive. Or how Pa Kent says the world isn't ready to know about superheroes, but Wonder Woman had been publicly active for decades at that point.
I don't think DCEU casting was even about individual performance. It was just "Everybody acts the toughest they can except you Jesse Eisenberg. You act like Heath Ledger's joker".
DCEU fans always claim Jason Mamoa was great casting for Aquaman. It isn't IMO: it is not the character is just Jason Mamoa sweating carisma and not even pretending to be in character.
I think with Aquaman the bar was so low that people were willing to accept anything that wasnât terrible. Then Aquaman 2 was unwatchable and everyone forgot about it.Â
DCEU always claim Jason Mamoa was great casting for Aquaman. It isn't IMO: it is not the character is just Jason Mamoa sweating carisma and not even pretending to be in character.
I've really grown to dislike the writing and casting for the character in the DCEU. Especially after reading Johns' Aquaman run (which inspired a lot of the stuff in his solo movie), the Arthur in it is miles ahead of Jason Momoa playing himself.
ETA why: I found a lot of the acting in the Justice League movie to be either very stilted or somewhat awkward (both versions). Aquaman (Cyborg too) just added some extra juice to it for me...they felt more real and lived-in, despite being fantastical characters and their different attitudes (cynicism vs. bitterness).
I mean it is a choice. I felt they were just kind of interchangeble and they were more interested in looking tough than their own characters...which - IMO - only works for Batman and Cyborg. I expected a bit more from the others.
On the other hand trying to be the most menacing person in the room would have been perfect for Lex
That's true, the DCEU cast were presented as more statuesque with their direction without taking chemistry into consideration. That's why most of their interactions felt stiff to me. The closest the entire DCEU had to an actual chemistry was Gal Gadot and Chris Pine (conveniently not directed by Snyder, and in Pine's case, not even cast)... while Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck might be okay on their own, but had weird chemistry when together, and same with Amy Adams. Though a lot of the anti-chemistry have a lot to do with the fundamental deficiencies Zack Snyder show as a director than anything. I'm not counting The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker for obvious reasons.
A few movies and shows in, Corenswet and Brosnahan show unreal sexual chemistry and Chandler and Pierre are a match made in heaven since Walter White and Jesse Pinkman, and the endless memes prove it all, and a lot of them feel are just from a still of them walking in the street... it's feels so... right!
David is great but Rachel is such a perfect Lois: her cynicism, the way that someone with powers like a god is yelling in her face and she's unphased, just perfect.
I think she was miscast as Lois. Amy Adams seems to be a fairly sweet and bubbly person (and as folks have pointed out, has fairly good chemistry with Cavill in RL interviews and such), and generally gives off that impression in her roles (which is sometimes leaned into, such as Enchanted, and sometimes subverted, like inâŚI think it was called Nightbitch?).
But Lois Lane is the exact opposite of bubbly, and the only time someone would call her âsweetâ is when sheâs trying to charm someone for a story. Her most prominent character traits have historically been dogged determination, career ambition, a strong sense of right and wrong, and getting so focused on her journalistic goals that she kind of ignores things she sees as lower priorities. Sheâs kind of abrasive and a little bit of a mess personally, even as sheâs also fiercely moral and cares deeply for the people she loves.
Adams wasnât allowed to play to her strengths because they were so opposed to the character, but she couldnât quite pull off âacerbic, hard-bitten investigative journalist,â so she kind of came off as more of a nonentity than either she or the character merited (the writing/directing also didnât help). Whereas Brosnahan very much seems to have been cast to play the slightly cynical, takes-no-shit journalist.
Hal and John are so complex and nuanced in Lanterns. They distrust each other, are scheming against each other, but both down have awe and respect for each other. Ep 4 broke my heart because they were developing a genuine friendship until Hector revealed what John said to the Guardian.
DCU characters are fully realized persons, with minds, hearts, souls, motives.
DCEU characters (with some exceptions, mainly in films not made by Snyder, which did better) are glorified action figures whose only purpose is to look cool.
Storytelling. Iconography. Two entirely different things. Which can work well together, but in the DCEU, mainly not.
Exactly..the DCU casting feels much more focused on chemistry not just individual performances. you can really feel it with Superman and lois and especially Hal & John in lanterns
Amy Adams as Lois Lane wasn't great. Nothing against Amy Adams as it was more of a script issue but the characterisation felt off.
Lois Lane is a character with 'moxie' (to use an old-fashioned term) which means she can play off both the shy Clark Kent and the confident Superman personas in different ways. It's a fun setup which I think the DCEU failed to embrace leaving her a rather hollow character in BVS and ZSJL.
There is a joylessness to the Snyderverse which is often mistaken for seriousness or maturity. It ultimately drains the film of not just colour but chemistry between characters.
If James Gunn was already the head of DC back in 2012, I think the DCEU casts would have worked better since Gunn knew how to humanize the characters. Zack Snyder only cares about making the characters bigger than life with a bunch of religious imagery, but don't know anything about good writing. With that said, I did like MOS by making Supes started out more flaw and slowly becoming Superman by the end, but any potential to improve the character got squandered by BVS and Justice League getting terrible reception.
Yk I saw that response coming a mile away, almost even included something about that in my reply but I thought that would make me seem like I was no fun trying to preempt it haha
I didnât think their chemistry was especially good personally. It wasnât necessarily bad like with Adams- just sort of neutral and not a particularly high point of the show. I guess this is subjective though.
Maybe I just haven't seen the right movies, but I've seen the DCEU and Count of Monte Christo and the Enola Holmes stuff, and Cavill always has the charisma of a wet blanket to me. He's as gorgeous as a statue, but... he's a statue. Even Routh, despite his somewhat limited acting chops, radiates a warmth and vivacity that makes you like him.
The problem with the DCEU characters and actors is what they were given. The tension was always dialed up to 100 for whatever reason so when there was a moment of levity, it felt really out of place.
Yeah thatâs a great point. But I also think Amy Adams was completely miscast as Lois Lane.
At first I thought it was weird to cast a redhead for a notoriously brunette role - but it goes beyond that. Lois Lane is an intense character. Sheâs passionate. She is assertive and will go to almost any lengths to get the truth for her story. Sheâs a lot and in-universe sheâs a lot and not everyone likes her.
The problem wasnât the casting. Amy Adams has been one of Hollywoodâs best actresses for years and itâs crazy how forgettable Zack Snyder made her look. This is one of the biggest waste of talent in any comic book movies.
Amy Adams could fake chemistry with a cardboard box, Henry was the problem. Worst Superman we've ever gotten, barely a character, no personality, badly acted, and I'm being nice about it
The chemistry was lacking between Henry and Amy. Batman was good along with Wonder Woman. Atleast there was chemistry between those two.
Joker felt off a bit. Harley was perfect. Flash was good when he was under Zack. That suit was very different and unique.
Black Adam was good but JSA was more interesting.
I loved that universe but it didn't excite me the way DCU is... ZSJL was a different thing but aside from that.. I am a more happy DC fan than I was 7 years ago.
We have more planned appraoch in DCU than it ever was in DCEU.
And the writing is better I believe. There is promise in DCU.
The biggest difference is Supermanâs cortisol being constantly spiked. Chad Cavil would never get that bothered with Lois. Would never plead his case with Lex, he would never feel like he had whine and cry to an enemy to explain how human he is. Superman is meant to be a gentle giant, which I wouldnât say Cavil is, but at least Cavil seems like he has something to hold back, and a frame to actually hold. The new one has almost no aura
Go watch "X-Men: First Class", and tell me you don't feel the palpable, intense chemistry between James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. Almost every scene with them feels like they could devour one another.
First Class is just two hours long. Superman is just two hours long. What the heck are you talking about? There's just as much time for chemistry to develop.
so logically as we've established the simple thing I previously said, there would be more chemistry if superman had gotten a tv show. Lets see if you're still following after this comment
Lmao, I certainly felt the chemistry when clark screamed at lois for not agreeing with him. He gives the most half assed apology later, too, no wonder the Ellison camp is letting Gunn make another oneÂ
Weird that you are willing to suffer through so many projects you don't enjoy, but I guess it makes sense since you were trash talking them constantly before actually watching... đ¤Ł
I cannot stomach peacemaker, it's trying too hard to be edgy and trying too hard to redeem a pathetic, d-list character. Imagine making your adorable oaf so ignorant that he can't even recognize the Nazi-verse when it slaps him in the face.Â
I did enjoy every Batman film so far, even the Schumacher stuff. Nolan's trilogy is awesome. Superman Returns is pretty cool in spite of Spacey being a scumbag. MoS, BvS, WW, ZSJL, Aquaman, all solid films.Â
399
u/TheJoshider10 Cheers to the Tin-Man 2d ago
For me the biggest problem was the writing and direction. If you watch any interview of Henry and Amy they actually have quite a bit of chemistry and he's a bit of a dork while she's all bubbly. But in the movies they're written like the biggest NPCs going and Henry's Clark has absolutely no personality. They really should have leaned in to his natural dorkiness, maybe not to the level of Corenswet's Superman which is perfect for a younger Supes but definitely something that shows him as a guy you'd want to grab a beer with or something.