SUPERMAN: 5 Reasons Why It's RIGHT For DC Studios To Replace Henry Cavill (And 1 Why It's WRONG)

SUPERMAN: 5 Reasons Why It's RIGHT For DC Studios To Replace Henry Cavill (And 1 Why It's WRONG)

Henry Cavill's time as Superman is over, with the actor forced to say goodbye to the Man of Steel as DC Studios looks to launch a new DCU. It was a bold decision, but one we think was right...mostly.

By HamiltonParker - Dec 15, 2022 01:12 PM EST
Filed Under: Superman

As expected, DC Studios' DCU looks set to be a fresh start for this comic book universe across film, television, and video games. It's an exciting time for fans who have spent close to a decade frustrated by Warner Bros.' approach to the franchise, but also one that's bringing its fair share of disappointments. 

Days after we learned Wonder Woman 3 is unlikely to become a reality under the new regime, James Gunn confirmed yesterday that he's writing a new Superman film about a younger Man of Steel...and he won't be needing Henry Cavill for it. 

Fans are understandably upset, though probably not as much as the actor seeing as it was only a few weeks ago he announced his return as Superman to the world. It's a bally move on Gunn's part, but as much as you might not like to hear this, we believe the filmmaker has made the right decision. 

Then again, there's at least one reason it could be the wrong one. 

By clicking the NEXT button, you can read our thoughts on why moving on from Henry Cavill's Superman might be the best - and worst - idea for this new DCU. 
 

Why It Was The Right Decision...

5. The DCU Needs A Fresh Start

Dnznbf-SXUAAAx-UJ

Over the course of the DCEU's history, there have been some great moments, a few fantastic films, and a lot of excellent casting decisions.

Outside of that, the franchise has been a failed experiment, unable to deliver the same level of success as the MCU and telling stories that haven't resonated with critics, fans, or regular moviegoers. For every Wonder Woman, there have been about three Suicide Squads, and the DCU needs to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. 

Keeping the DCEU actors, Cavill included, would be a major blunder. They're massively talented and great as the characters they've been cast as - Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, for example - but for this 8-10 year plan to succeed, it's time to move on from the Snyderverse.
 

4. Henry Cavill Is (Sorry!) Yesterday's News

man-of-steel-1-copy

There was a fair bit of excitement surrounding Cavill's announcement that he would return as Superman, but it didn't break the internet. By the time Black Adam rolled around, it had been five years since moviegoers saw his Man of Tomorrow on the big screen, and interest had waned. 

It's true that fans had held out hope to see more of the British actor as Clark Kent, but that was drowned out by everything from #ReleaseTheSnyderCut to all the other big plans we heard Warner Bros. had for Superman (and Supergirl) on screen. 

Simply put, at this point, any sort of Man of Steel 2 announcement would be more of the same rather than a huge piece of news capable of generating a suitable level of hype for the DCU as it enters this new era. It's time to move on, something we're sure you'll agree with after our next slide...
 

3. There's Too Much Baggage

Man-Of-Steel-Superman-Zod-copy

Zack Snyder did a lot of good in the DCEU, but his interpretation of Superman was not for everyone. From the destruction of Metropolis during his battle with General Zod to the way he ultimately dispatched that villain, this Clark Kent has been divisive and controversial from the start. 

We've since seen this Superman rock a laughable CGI jaw, murder Batman as a full-fledged villain, and appear headless in Shazam! because Warner Bros. wouldn't pay Cavill what he wanted. 

Any sort of reboot could move on to some degree, but there's so much baggage with this Superman, we'd always be forced to remember the past. Having the actor reprise his role in the new DCU, surrounded by mostly new characters and a vastly different approach to storytelling, would just feel awkward. 
 

2. It Would Confuse Non-Fans

henry-cavill-man-of-steel-2-copy

As comic book fans, we often tend to forget how different it is for regular moviegoers - who make up the vast majority of box office takings - to experience these stories. 

Interest in the MCU has waned during Phase 4 because the regular Joe who enjoys the spectacle of a new Marvel movie simply doesn't have time in their busy lives to follow every single TV show in order to understand what's happening. The concept of the Multiverse has confused fanboys, so how do you think parents or causal comic book readers feel? 

To include Cavill in a DCU that's clearly going to reboot this entire franchise, making next year's The Flash near-meaningless, would be beyond confusing, especially if his past is wiped away to accommodate new stories. 
 

1. Everything About That Black Adam Cameo

x1080

If you're currently raging at James Gunn on Twitter for "firing" Henry Cavill, you might want to think about aiming your frustrations elsewhere: The Rock, for example. 

Dwayne Johnson must have known he had a bad movie on his hands with Black Adam, so, at the last minute, went around Walter Hamada in order to orchestrate Henry Cavill's Superman return (they share an agent). From there, he used the Man of Steel to increase interest in a movie receiving negative reviews and hoped the cameo would guarantee interest in a sequel.

Instead, it's just shown that Johnson, and potentially Cavill, cannot be trusted. It also means bringing this Superman into the DCU with the expectation that he'll fight Black Adam, a crossover DC Studios is unlikely to want to make a reality given the film's poor critical and commercial performance. 

Why do we think DC Studios made a mistake by not moving forward with Henry Cavill's Superman in the DCU? Continue reading below to find out!
 

...And Why It Might Have Been The Wrong Decision

1. Henry Cavill Deserved Better

Man-of-Steel-The-Official-Movie-Novelization-cover-copy

Henry is having a tough enough time as it is, so we're not going to pile on the poor guy any further. Everything we've said so far is hard to argue against, but so too is the fact that the actor deserved better than this. 

Since 2013, he had to deal with appalling creative decisions, poor management from studio executives, and being shelved for reasons entirely out of his control. Cavill always gave Superman his all on screen and has frequently talked about his love for The Man of Steel; a character that he told the world he would return as, thanks to Warner Bros., before being let go weeks later. 

It sucks, and we wish he'd been given the chance to play the hopeful Superman he wanted to bring to life on screen. Looking to the future, another DCU role might be fun...however, we think it's about darn time Marvel Studios give him a call and have him suit up as Captain Britain. 
 

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel
Related:

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel

SUPERMAN Casts ROGUE ONE And CREATURE COMMANDOS Star Alan Tudyk In An Undisclosed Role
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Casts ROGUE ONE And CREATURE COMMANDOS Star Alan Tudyk In An Undisclosed Role

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2 3
Spawnnn
Spawnnn - 12/15/2022, 1:04 PM
The casting of DC universe is about to change.
MahN166A
MahN166A - 12/15/2022, 1:04 PM
@Spawnnn -

Lmao!
DSAC294
DSAC294 - 12/15/2022, 1:46 PM
@Spawnnn - hahahhaha… we’ll played
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 1:07 PM
There is NO reason why it was right to replace Cavill. I promise you the studio will rue this day when it is sold - AGAIN - and James Gunn joins the multiple directors, producers and studio heads who have ruined their careers by making bad decisions with reagrd to DC films.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 1:15 PM
@Forthas - plenty of reason to replace him

His movies all got mixed responses
His movies all failed to enough to be worth the investment while the movie budgets only got bigger
Keep Cavil and we are stuck with Lex Zuckerberg

People will be over him when the trailer comes out just like every other recast in comic book movie history
MahN166A
MahN166A - 12/15/2022, 1:24 PM
@Forthas -
LMFAO.
“I promise you the studio will rue this day…”

Shouldn’t you be sitting in a chair by an open fire, plotting and scheming…?

🤣🤣🤣 Jeez!
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 1:36 PM
@dracula - Top Gun had a similar critic response as Man of Steel...so by your judgement we should replace Tom Cruise and not have him do sequels.

Man of Steel was by no stretch of the imagination a failure. I am not sure where that nonsese comes from...

You don't have to keep lex Zuckerberg the same way we did not keep mute Deadpool...you just.

No one will get over him...the same way people still have Christian Bale ranked HIGHER than any other on screen Batman.

https://screenrant.com/batman-best-actors-bruce-wayne-ranker/

...and ever since ... Warner Brother's has been sold twice, its stock price is in the tank, and their fanbase has no faith in them. So if their "plan" is to basically do that again...I wonder how that will turn out?
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 1:37 PM
@MahN166A - I am sitting by a space heater...
MahN166A
MahN166A - 12/15/2022, 1:45 PM
@Forthas -

…Are you contemplating revenge with your cat, though?
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 1:52 PM
@Forthas - the original top gun also made 20 times its budget and didnt get a sequel for over 20 years

Man of steel was a massive failure barely doing better than break even. And before you start brining up marketing bullshit, you and the Rock and the only people who bring that crap up. Every actually successful movie is successful on their box office alone. How much advertisers pay them means nothing if people arent seeing the movie.

Nobody is brining up marketing hauls from any mcu movie or the dark knight trilogy or the successful dc movies. They just talk box office cause thats what matters.

Actually based on post credit scenes, rebooted or not Deadpool was going to talk again and again, big difference between a main character in 3 movies and an actor who had limited screen time and didnt even play the actual version people hated (he was only in the opening scenes)

People love Bale they still have no problem with Pattinson and they were accepting of Affleck (after the usual hissy fits that come with every recast)

Also you are comparing one of the best batmen to one of the worst supermen

Better to try something new with the possibility of failure (and equal chance of success) than to keep going with what isnt working
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 1:59 PM
@MahN166A - I have a ferret!
Termin8r
Termin8r - 12/15/2022, 2:03 PM
@Forthas - man of steel barely broke even. it's not nonsense, it's straight facts. they spent over 300 mil and it grossed over 600 mil. that's not successful.
JFerguson
JFerguson - 12/15/2022, 2:06 PM
@Forthas -



How can you compare Top Gun Maverick, when it still has momentum from its recent release, to Man of Steel, whose main character was beholden to franchise-driven storytelling which killed momentum when BVS and justice league failed? Not to mention Man of Steel’s 2013 release which came right off the back of the release of the Avengers, when momentum was very high for the expected MOS sequel
JonC
JonC - 12/15/2022, 2:13 PM
@Forthas - From what i have seen in Gunn's responses he has not let Cavill go from playing Superman. He said that Cavill is not needed for the "next movie" as intended as it covers Clark at an "young age" and would be played by someone else. He still has plans for Cavill in the DCU which he stated to Cavill, though did not specify if it was to play Superman specifically. So Gunn has not replaced him as of yet to play the adult Superman.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 2:26 PM
@dracula - OK so you are talking about financial succss? Man of Steel made $806 million is TODAYS dollars which you can calculate here

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

So based on your logic, they shuld replace Robert Pattinson as Batman. Man of Steel was a huge hit.

Whether the post credit scene was going to have Deadpool talk or not, the fact is that version of the character was rebooted without explanation and it had ZERO effect on its success.

If Bale is the preffered Batman, it is proof positive that replacing him was a mistake.

"...to one of the worst supermen"

I am not discussing Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill is better than Christopher Reeve.

And by the way I will bring up marketing revenue. There is no reason not to epecially if your measure of success is based on the amount they spent on the film. When Man of Steel’s theatrical release, it attracted a record (at the time) $160 million in advertising dollars offsetting its reported $225 million production budget. Man of Steel went on to generate $667 million worldwide banking an estimated $300 million in profit according to SNL Kagan analyst Wade Holden becoming the highest grossing solo Superman film of all time and most profitable. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/batman-v-superman-set-to-be-less-profitable-than-man-of-steel-a6978411.html Couple that with Man of Steel’s performance post box office currently ranking 23rd on the all time US Blu-ray sales chart (selling more than Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Captain America: Civil War, and Aquaman) https://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

If I can make $160 million then it makes no difference if I spend $225 million because the revenue offsets the other effectively making the production cost $65 million. If someone wants to bring up marketing revenue for Marvel then I have zero problem with that.

Beter to DO something that is proven and the audience has accepted and wants, then take a chance on something new and fail just like they have done for ten years.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 2:27 PM
@Termin8r - Read my reply to Dracula below...it did not "barely" break even it was a hit. I prove it with links to the DATA and FACTS that are irrefutable.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 2:29 PM
@JFerguson - I compared it to TOP GUN...the film that came out in 1986
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 2:31 PM
@JonC - I don't think that is right. Henry Cavill stated his time as Superman is over on his instagram or tweet...or whatever he commented on.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 3:07 PM
@Forthas - originally wrote something bigger but a site error [frick]ed up the posting so here is the short version

That also means the budget was bigger by todays dollars, doesnt change the profit

Pattinson made 7 times the production budget and 4 times it after covid costs. Bigger profit.

Pattinson made enough to cover the expense of a sequel and then some

Cavil’s movies failed to even bring in enough to even cover half of what came after.

Bale still being popular does nothing but show the quality of those movies. Deny it all you want he was not interested in more after Rises without Nolan. And a previous version being popular doesnt mean you stop unless you have them. Or what you think the bond series should stop without daniel craig?

Reeve became the standard for superheroes, cavil is just the flavor of the week

Whedon, Nolan, Philips, Wan, Gunn and Reeves dont meed to add up every penny to make their movies look successful. Their box offices speak for themselves, add everything up and their movies are even bigger successes

Have fun counting every penny with James Cameron (on avatar), the rock and the cult of snyder counting every penny even stuff years after its release to look like a top dog, when with the exception of avatar, all those movies failed

If people accepted Cavil you wouldnt need to add every penny to make his movies look successful. Superman got warner brothers that marketing money not cavil. If he did, more people would have shown up and stuck around
JonC
JonC - 12/15/2022, 3:13 PM
@Forthas - here are the tweets from Gunn... they only say Cavill is out for the first movie... as it covers a young Clark.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/henry-cavill-superman-cancelled-james-gunn/
...maybe Cavill has walked away from it (i have yet to see an actual statement from him) but that's not specifically what Gunn is saying.
...writers especially look into tweets to get buzz stories without following the actual facts of the tweet... and i don't see any official post by Henry Cavill on twitter that he is out.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 3:43 PM
@dracula -

@dracula -

Sure it was bigger, but it was offset by marketing revenue making it cheaper.

You seem to have selective information The BATMAN cost $200 million only $25 million less than Man of Steel ...
https://screenrant.com/the-batman-movie-budget-cost-updates/

Based on Cavill's Man of Steel, they greenlit TWO movies. The Batman has yet to be greenlit for a sequel.

I already let Bale explain to you in his own words that the Studio told him his services were no longer needed and a few years after that the studio was sold. Daniel Craig is great example of someone who was asked to come back to the role and wound up playing

Reeve is overrated.

Whedon is a joke right now...enough said! I think Gunn DOES need to add up his pennies for the box office bomb that was The Suicide Squad. Outside of Marvel, he has not exactly burned up the box office. In fact it is only because he is part of Marvel that he has the success he has.

Cavill does not need to add pennies, Man of Steel made big dollars. That is why people went out and purchased physiacl media making Man of Steel a top 25 best seller.

https://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart
Termin8r
Termin8r - 12/15/2022, 3:45 PM
@Forthas - you did not. here's a link that shows BVS being less profitable than thor the dark world, the most forgettable marvel movie to date. it was less profitable than ASM 2. Check your facts:

https://comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/batman-v-superman-final-profits-tallied-how-much-did-it-really-earn-a149858
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 3:59 PM
@Termin8r - I did NOT mention BvS. I made the case for Man of Steel. The link is someones estimate...but even if it were absolutley correct, it refutes @dracula 's misinformation that Man of Steel was not profitable.

I don't want to defend BvS because I hate that film. But Thor The Dark World is only more profitable because it was cheaper, but ultimately it made less money even though it followed the original Avengers IN THE SAME YEAR!
Termin8r
Termin8r - 12/15/2022, 4:31 PM
@Forthas - sure, not profitable was not the exact right way of putting it. but man of steel was also less profitable than all those movies. it wasn't what they wanted for their big shared universe starter. dark world was cheaper, but still, it was more profitable. they spent a boat load on MOS and didn't get a boatload in return. plus these estimates include ancillaries. MOS made a roughly 40 mil profit total. without the ancillaries, it was a dud from the perspective of just the box office alone. the dude just never headlined a successful blockbuster.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 5:02 PM
@Termin8r - Here is the multiplier (WW Box Office divided by Budget)...for the first film in the series of three franchises

Batman Begins - 2.49
Captain America First Avenger - 2.65
Man of Steel - 2.97

Man of steel's origin film is better than two of the most acclaimed and profitable franchises in the CBM genre. This utter nonsense that it was a failure means that THOSE two other films were failures also.

Is that right?
TheWalkingCuban
TheWalkingCuban - 12/15/2022, 5:11 PM
@Forthas - 2012 & 2013 are not the same year tho
Forthas
Forthas - 12/15/2022, 5:21 PM
@TheWalkingCuban - OK fine! 19 months!
TheWalkingCuban
TheWalkingCuban - 12/15/2022, 5:29 PM
@Forthas - that’s almost the difference between my two youngest kids. 20 moths, I skip the n to save time typing an extra letter into a word that definitely doesn’t need 6 letters to get the point across which it is trying to make, WOO! *sips Gatorade* that’s better, where was I? Ah yes. 20 moths.

Beavis: I think that’s a slot.
Butthead: your moth-er’s a slot, uh huh huh.
Termin8r
Termin8r - 1/3/2023, 1:21 PM
@Forthas - it kind of is. On paper, it looks like the First Avenger didn't really turn a profit. but the avengers did well, which led to them investing in Winter Soldier.

Batman Begins also looks like it barely eeked out a profit. But, Batman Begins is awesome. First Avenger is solid. MoS is weak. It's a combination of the weak sauce and the weak gross.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 1:10 PM
Agree on the 5

No offense to Cavil, he seems like a nice enough guy but you could say a lot of actors deserved better

Brandon Routh
Edward Norton
Terrance Howard
Ryan Reynolds (in Green Lantern)
Etc.

Cavil’s contract was fulfilled
xfactor
xfactor - 12/15/2022, 1:37 PM
@dracula - Exactly. No offense to cavill and I admire his perseverance but his acting was dull and wooden. And he had more than enough chances to prove himself whereas Brandon Routh (who’s a better actor) received even less. Henry should be so lucky
Chuck420Taylor
Chuck420Taylor - 12/15/2022, 2:30 PM
@dracula - Terrance Howard though? My man is fighting universities creating new math laws he doesn't have time for the puny MCU.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 2:52 PM
@Chuck420Taylor - now he is doing that, doesnt change the way he was let go from iron man 2
Goldboink
Goldboink - 12/15/2022, 4:45 PM
@dracula -
Sorry, but Terrance Howard sucked as Rhody.
Goldboink
Goldboink - 12/15/2022, 4:46 PM
@dracula -
He demanded a big raise and they whacked him. He also had no chemistry with RDJ who was the star and that, as they say, is that.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 4:53 PM
@Goldboink -
Well he asked for what was in his contract. Don Cheadle is way better but really they only replaced howard after they tried to back track on their previous agreement (and possibly pay him less than the first film) and he wanted them to honor it.

Cavil signed for 3, he did 3
TheWalkingCuban
TheWalkingCuban - 12/15/2022, 5:09 PM
@Goldboink - he wasn’t the right fit, mane
Goldboink
Goldboink - 12/15/2022, 5:11 PM
@dracula -
All the financial entanglements aside I think it was mainly RDJ who didn't like working with him and wanted to bring Cheadle in. It's been a while but that's what is sticking in my brain.
dracula
dracula - 12/15/2022, 1:11 PM
Hope we get Shazam 3 and see him face black adam, but if they reboot Shazam as well, seriously that is one thing James Gunn needs to direct
1 2 3
View Recorder