When Amy Adams was first cast as Lois Lane in "Man of Steel," people were at first somewhat surprised by the casting decision. Though most people are on board with the idea now, producer Deborah Snyder explained in a new interview why Adams was chosen for Lois.

"Amy is an amazing actor. With all the casting we tried to get the best actors we could, because it just gives it credibility. In so many ways we didn’t look at it as a genre superhero movie -- we looked at it as a great story that we were telling, and we wanted to get the best people," Snyder told SFX. "Amy embodied so much of Lois -- she’s feisty herself and she’s so versatile, and she was really just perfect for the role."

Snyder also opened up about the process of deciding on what Superman's costume would look like in the movie. She called the process "daunting," and also said her husband Zack Snyder tried to find a style he liked that featured Superman's underwear on the outside of his costume.

"We went through so many iterations of the costume and yes, Zack did try very hard to make the underpants on the outside of the costume work -- there are nods to it, with the belt and with some of the side detail on the costume, and that just felt more appropriate to the movie we were making," she said. "The other thing that was important for Zack was that the costume not come out of nowhere. It had to have a reason. ... [Krypton is] also a caped society, so when you go to Krypton he wanted to see variations of this costume. And knowing that it was a caped society he wanted that to be evident when we were on Krypton, so when Clark finally finds the costume and puts it on you’ve established where it’s come from."

"Man of Steel" hits theaters on June 14.

Do you like the casting of Adams? What about the Superman outfit? Tell us in the comments section below or on Twitter!

Bryan Singer wants the world to know that his triumphant return to the "X-Men" movie universe in "X-Men: Days of Future Past" will be special. According to him, the new film is much more than just a sequel or spinoff.

"It's not just another X-Men film; it’s not just about the combined cast as there will be certain technologies and other stuff that we haven’t seen before in the X-Men film," he told SFX. "There are also issues of time and we’re messing about with that. I think we’ve got it figured out. I pitched it to James Cameron when I was in New Zealand last year and he said, ‘Yes, that makes sense.'"

Singer continued, "We wanted an opportunity to bring some of the favourite older and younger characters together. We also wanted to play with the notion of different times and stuff like the way that time affects destinies. It enables the film to not just be a sequel to 'First Class' or 'X-Men 3' but to actually be its own thing."

Meanwhile in a separate interview with Entertainment Weekly (via ComicBook.com), Hugh Jackman revealed that Singer banned the cast from reading comics on the set of "X-Men." Humorously, Jackman said that the cast frequently broke the rules and that comics were everywhere on set. It was during that time that Jackman first read Chris Claremont and Frank Miller's limited series that "The Wolverine" ended up being based on.

Do you like the idea of "X-Men: Days of Future Past" being more of a standalone movie? Tell us in the comments section below or on Twitter!

by Brett White

Fans have been waiting for something like the Battle for Quicksilver to happen, ever since it was made clear that the film rights for the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Spider-Man would not be returning to Marvel Studios anytime soon. Now it seems likely that two versions of the same superhero will be appearing in different franchises, with one or both films not able to fully depict the character as he is in the comics.

At this point it'd help to have a checklist of exactly which studios own what characters, because it's pretty confusing the way it stands right now. Fox owns the X-Men and Fantastic Four, but mutants can apparently appear in Marvel Studios films as long as they're not called mutants (and possibly not called by their code names). Sony owns Spider-Man, and he's not moving studios, not ever. That means we'll never see Norman Osborn clash with the Avengers in a Marvel Studios film. Galactus and Silver Surfer, two essential characters for Marvel Studios considering they're going cosmic, are owned by Fox as part of the Fantastic Four deal. But that ownership doesn't extend to the Inhumans, who are Fantastic Four characters that Marvel Studios is boldly talking about turning into a film.

It's all really confusing.

And as Marvel movies continue to make big bucks, more characters are going to get introduced. Here are seven more characters that could result in Quicksilver-level confusion, with assumed studio ownership marked throughout.

Cloak and Dagger
Tandy Bowen and Tyrone Johnson were teenage runaways who befriended each other on the streets of New York City. They were both abducted and subjected to drug tests by a criminal chemist, which they survived and gained powers from. So what's the catch? It was later revealed that the drug merely awakened their latent mutant powers (Fox), thus making the duo mutants at a time when mutant comics sold like crazy. Whether or not the pair are actually mutants remains a topic of debate in serious comic book circles, but the two fall into a camp similar to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as mutant characters who've never really been X-Men. They've just been Marvel superheroes (Marvel). They were members of Norman Osborn's (Sony) Dark X-Men (Fox) for a brief time, which presents a legal nightmare where the film rights are concerned.

Justice and Firestar
Just like Cloak and Dagger, Vance Astrovik (Justice) and Angelica Jones (Firestar) are mutants (Fox) who have always operated outside of the X-Men (Marvel). The couple were both members of the New Warriors in the early '90s and later joined the Avengers (Marvel) together during Kurt Busiek and George Perez's beloved run. Astrovik is a curious case because in addition to being an Avenger, a future version of himself was also a member of the original Guardians of the Galaxy (Marvel). And Firestar was originally created as part of the "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" cartoon show (Sony?) but was introduced into the comics as a supporting character in X-Men (Fox).

Beast
This one should be obvious, as Beast was an original X-Man and is preparing to star in his third X-Men film (Fox). But Beast was also an Avenger (Marvel) for an extended period of time. Beast's ownership could be called into question because of the same reasons Marvel thought it was cool to use Quicksilver, a mutant character who has been a member of his fair share of X-Men teams. If Marvel can use Quicksilver without saying he's a mutant and calling him by his real name, then maybe a human scientist named Hank McCoy could pop up as one of Bruce Banner's old colleagues.

Namor
Namor is the oldest Marvel Comics character, debuting way back in 1939, and he's been a mainstay pretty much ever since his return in the early '60s. It's shocking that he's yet to appear on the big screen considering his historical importance and continued prominence in the comics... until you realize how wacky his film rights might be. He debuted as a Marvel character (Marvel), but returned after a decade long absence in the pages of "Fantastic Four" (Fox). He then started appearing in more Marvel comics and later joined the Avengers (Marvel), but it was eventually revealed that he was actually a mutant (Fox). This was played up for a while in the early '90s to hopefully tie him into the X-Men's success, but that was dropped and he went back to being a general Marvel hero (Marvel). But he spent the better part of the last five years as a full-fledged, heavy-hitting member of the X-Men (Fox), and is now starring in the comic "New Avengers" (Marvel).

Spider-Woman
Judging by her name, it would seem that Sony would own her outright. She was obviously created as a tie-in to Spider-Man, hence the name Spider-Woman. But... not so fast. She debuted in "Marvel Spotlight" #32 (Marvel), acted as a solo hero independent of any larger affiliation (Marvel), and has powers that bear next to no resemblance to Spider-Man's (Marvel). The only things that ties her to Spider-Man are her code name and a few slight homages in her costume (Sony). But Jessica Drew also operated as an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers (Marvel), so it seems like she could easily be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe without using the name Spider-Woman, which is a name I'm pretty sure Sony doesn't want any other film studio to use.

Which studios do you hope have the rights to which characters? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

by Brett White

With Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" set to start filming next month in London, actress Zoe Saldana is anxiously waiting to find out just what her character will look like in the film.

"I'm curious," she admitted to USA Today. "That's what I want I start to check out, too: Am I going to wear leather? Is it going to be spandex? How's my hair going to look?"

These are all valid concerns for the actress, considering that her role as Gamora will prove to be an incredibly physical one. Gamora is known as the deadliest woman in the galaxy, and Saldana has expressed interest in doing pretty much every stunt that she physically can do. But for the majority of time that Gamora's existed in the comics, she's worn outfits that don't really adhere to the laws of physics. Gamora's going to need a costume overhaul similar to the one seen in the new "Guardians" comics (see above right) if she's going to work on the big screen.

This marks Saldana's third foray into a sci-fi franchise, following her role in "Avatar" and two outings as Uhura in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" films.

"I do have an affinity for people, writers, directors and storytellers who are that creative and have an infinite imagination to imagine the unimaginable and boldly go where no one has gone before," says Saldana, explaining her attraction to science fiction properties. "I know it sounds cheesy to use that line as a reference but it's true — it takes a lot of talent and courage and freedom to conceive something that you have never seen, or take inspiration from everything around your life and build something that you've never actually physically seen with your eyes."

USA Today also offhandedly confirms Lee Pace as part of the cast, which was previously just a rumor. Those rumors mentioned that Pace was up for the part of the film's main villain, meaning he could be playing the bad guy mentioned in this spoilery rumor.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" hits theaters on August 1st, 2014.

[via USA Today]

Do you think Gamora's costume will look similar to her new comic book one? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

by Brett White

Relations between Marvel Studios and Fox have gotten a bit more complicated after Bryan Singer announced that Quicksilver, a character that Joss Whedon has been very vocal about including in "The Avengers 2," was just added to the cast of "X-Men: Days of Future Past." Judging by the quickness (pun super intended) of the casting, it's not far fetched to assume that Quicksilver was added to the now-shooting "X-Men" film just to get to him first.

In fact, the initial wording of Singer's tweet contained a subtle jab at the Avengers, saying that "before he was an #Avenger, he was just a REALLY fast kid." Singer's since deleted that tweet and replaced it with this one:

But as olive branch-y as that replacement tweet may seem, HitFix's sources say things are anything but peaceful between the two studios.

"This is not a situation where the two different companies are working together to try and create a sense of a larger shared world," HitFix's report states. "In fact, if either of them could get the other to back off, they would. The thing is, Bryan Singer has designed a sequence that he feels only works with Quicksilver, and Joss Whedon feels that there is a pressing reason for Quicksilver to show up in 'The Avengers 2,' and so what we're going to see is a legally-negotiated stand-off in which we'll get two totally different versions of one character. While they may act like things are amicable in public, HitFix sources say otherwise... Marvel has larger plans for the character, though, and wants to use him for more than just one action sequence."

This fits in line with how the X-Men films have operated in the past. At least a dozen X-Men characters have been adapted into film in barely recognizable forms, or for nothing more than power-based cameos with no real characterization. The two least respected X-Men films, "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," are the worst offenders, with characters like Multiple Man, Psylocke, Emma Frost, Callisto, Maverick and Angel being put in film with little work done to make their appearances matter. Quicksilver even got this treatment briefly in "X-Men Origins," appearing for literally four seconds as a super fast kid stuck in a cage.

This HitFix report confirms that Quicksilver looks to be set up for this treatment again, especially considering how crowded "Days of Future Past" already is. The good thing is that it doesn't look like Quicksilver's appearance in "Days of Future Past" precludes him from being in "Avengers 2" (as hinted at in the tweets found at Comic Book Movie), where the character stands to play a significant part. But just because the character might still be in "Avengers 2" doesn't mean Marvel Studios will be too happy about all this.

"This is the first time this has happened, and there is still time for Fox to blink," HitFix's report continues. "If they push forward and allow Singer to include the character, there's a chance they're burning down any future cooperation with Marvel, who have proven themselves to be hard negotiators who aren't afraid to flex whatever muscle they have."

More updates as things get more confusing, which they probably will.

[via Comic Book Movie]

Do you think it's cool for Quicksilver to be in two different franchises? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

by Brett White

"Amazing Spider-Man 2" actor Jamie Foxx opened up to Yahoo! Movies about his transformation into a comic book super villain. We've already seen a sneak peek of his Electro persona during a few scenes shot in Times Square, but judging by Foxx's comments, there will be more to Electro's look than just blue body paint and a hoodie.

"Oh, man, it's so much fun," says Foxx about the experience. "The costume is great. They were very creative with it... It's a couple hours of work [to get into makeup], but it's really so much fun. It's part of a remarkable legacy: Spider-Man. I mean, when you're growing up as a kid, you know, that's everything. So to be able to be in that is just amazing."

Foxx also revealed that San Diego Comic Con attendees could be the first to see Foxx's total Electro makeover.

"Now I'm just waiting to get to Comic-Con and see how people respond to it. [Director] Marc Webb is a genius and Amy Pascal and everybody at Sony have just be so gracious to allow me to have this opportunity. So it's cool."

Of course Foxx could be wondering how people will respond at Comic Con to the look we've already seen; it wouldn't be surprising if the people behind "Amazing Spider-Man 2" kept Electro's full-on bad guy suit secret until closer to the film's release date next summer.

[Image via Getty Images]

[via Comic Book Movie]

What do you think Electro's costume will look like? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

by Brett White

Whatever uncertainty there is surrounding Quicksilver's involvement now that Bryan Singer has called dibs on the character, it's still relatively certain that at least one more Avenger will assemble in "Avengers 2": Scarlet Witch. According to writer and director Joss Whedon, Wanda Maximoff will be among the movie's new recruits, and he already has a prototypical actress in mind for Scarlet Witch. It was rumored earlier this month that Saoirse Ronan ("The Host") is exactly the type of actress the production is looking for. But what does Ronan think about that? The Mary Sue asked if she had heard about the rumors and if she would consider joining the cast.

"I have heard about it and yes, I would. Yeah, of course I would. I love Joss and I love those films, and I love his handle on them and how he portrayed these kinds of superheroes. I think it's very different from what anyone else has done. So yeah, I'd love to be in it."

So if it's true that Whedon wants an actress like Ronan, then this should be a done deal. Of course things could easily change for the script, as it's still in the early stages (as Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has pointed out).

There are plenty of issues surrounding the inclusion of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the most troubling being that Quicksilver was just snatched up by "X-Men: Days of Future Past." If Marvel backs off of using the character due to his exposure in the Fox film, it's possible that Scarlet Witch could hit the big screen without her twin brother. I really hate it when confusing film rights break families apart.

"The Avengers 2" starts principal photography in the United Kingdom in early 2014.

[via the Mary Sue]

What do you think of Saoirse Ronan playing Scarlet Witch? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

by Brett White

And things just got very, very interesting for Marvel.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" director Bryan Singer dropped a bomb via Twitter this afternoon when he announced that Evan Peters, best known for his roles in the TV series "American Horror Story," has been cast as Quicksilver in next year's mutant film. This comes as great news for fans of the character, who has frequently popped up as a member of the super hero teams X-Factor and the Avengers.

Oh yeah, the Avengers. This is a bombshell because writer and director Joss Whedon has been very vocal about Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch's involvement in his early drafts of "Avengers 2." Since the characters have spent the majority of their 50 year comic book career as members of the Avengers, it makes sense for Whedon to include Quicksilver and his twin sister in an Avengers sequel. But since the characters are mutants, and Magneto's children to boot, they're also fair game for Bryan Singer. This is a problem since the Avengers and X-Men's film rights are owned by two different studios.

Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has gone on record saying that the characters are fair game for either studio, but it seemed like this was a first-come first-served type thing. So what does this mean for Quicksilver's involvement in "The Avengers 2"?

Bryan Singer's tweet acknowledges the character's role in Whedon's initial drafts, and it's not hard to read into the director's choice of words.

There hasn't been a new cast member announcement since just over a month ago when Adan Canto joined the cast, most likely as Sunspot. I say "most likely" because Singer has kept the new actors' roles top secret. You have to go to the film's IMDB page to get even a hint as to who new cast members like Booboo Stewart and Peter Dinklage are playing. Singer specifically pointing out that Evan Peters is playing Quicksilver is unlike any other casting announcement so far, and can definitely be read in a "FIRST!" tone. This announcement coming relatively soon after Whedon revealed Quicksilver's involvement in his drafts, and the lengthy stretch of time since the last X-Men casting, just makes it seem like Fox wanted to use Quicksilver before Marvel could.

So what does this mean for "The Avengers 2"? The script is still in its early stages, so it's possible Quicksilver could be written out. Maybe we'll only get Scarlet Witch in "Avengers 2," leaving the siblings separated by film rights. Or maybe both studios will have a Quicksilver in their respective franchises (although "X-Men: Days of Future Past" may be the only film allowed to call him Quicksilver). Unless this was a bluff by Whedon all along and he expected Fox to make this move, it wouldn't be surprising to hear that rewrites are being made.

Who ever thought there'd be this much attention paid to Quicksilver?

Would you rather have Quicksilver in "Days of Future Past" or "Avengers 2"? Let us know in the comments below or hit us up on Twitter!

Expect to see a bit more Volstagg in "Thor: The Dark World" than you did in the first "Thor." Ray Stevenson said in a new interview that the Warriors Three will have a different sort of role than they did the first time around.

"[Volstagg's] great on a battlefield. He is one of the Warriors Three and doing what they do, their time is spent fighting on many different fronts," Stevenson told The Wall Street Journal. "They're not always fighting together. Volstagg is struggling, he has a brood, they are fighting for hearth and home as much as for the idea of Asgard itself. That's where he has trouble. He's all too aware of how potentially threatening this new enemy is on both the home front and the battlefield."

Stevenson goes on to reveal that fans will be seeing an entirely new side of Asgard in this new movie. As the threat of Malekith the Accursed draws closer, dark times will fall on Thor and Volstagg's home world.

"In the first 'Thor' Asgard had this tremendous peace among the nine realms. They were riding at the heights. Everything is working and looking as it should be," Stevenson said. "In this one, the realms are being whipped up into various rebellions. There is a darker malignant force out there and we are in the process of engaging in long protracted skirmishes and battles. The luster and shine of the city has been taken off and it all leads to a huge assault, an attack at the heart of Asgard. It could be completely wiped out, the stakes are a lot higher."

"Thor: The Dark World" hits theaters on November 8.

Are you looking forward to seeing this darker side of Asgard? Tell us in the comments section below or on Twitter!

A slew of rumors and speculation about the fate of Spider-Man at Sony have hit the web following news that the company's head is considering selling a 15 to 20 percent stake in Sony's entertainment division. Fortunately Sony Pictures entertainment co-chair Amy Pascal has come forward to set the record straight.

During a brief phone interview, Pascal told Ain't It Cool News that Sony would "never ever ever" get rid of the Spider-Man property while she is at the helm. The site adds that "she feels the property is directly tied to her legacy and time at Sony. Not just that, she is really thrilled by the work on the new film."

The rumors stemmed from reports on The Register, Comic Book Therapy and Comic Book Movie that interpreted the potential sale of Sony Entertainment's public stake as meaning that some of its properties would be up for auction. However, as /Film clearly points out, the suggested sale will be more of a "public offering" of some of the company's stock to raise money.

Since franchises like "Spider-Man" and "James Bond" are among Sony Entertainment's most profitable, it doesn't make any sense for the company to consider selling them off. So, sorry to fans who were hoping Spider-Man would find a place among the Avengers in "The Avengers 2" -- it doesn't look like that's going to happen just yet.

Would you want Sony to sell the rights to "Spider-Man"? Tell us in the comments section below or on Twitter!