Amy Adams discusses 'Batman vs. Superman' film and the role of Lois Lane

Amy Adams, who starred in 'Man of Steel,' was asked about the possibility of a love triangle between Superman, Lois Lane, and Wonder Woman and said she 'hope[s] that I can be involved with a woman on screen where we’re not in a love triangle.' Amy Adams is returning as Lois Lane in the new 'Superman' film.

Eric Thayer/Reuters
Amy Adams will star in the next 'Superman' film.

Fans who have long clamored for a big-screen version of DC’s Justice League may be on the verge of getting their wish. While no official announcements about the long-awaited project have been released, the upcoming Man of Steel sequel – or Batman vs. Superman, if you prefer – promises to flesh out the DC Cinematic Universe in more ways than many previously expected it to.

First came the news that Oscar winner Ben Affleck will don the cowl as the Dark Knight himself, and then – amidst rumors that a variety of heroes may appear – director Zack Snyder and Warner Bros. announced that Fast & Furious star Gal Gadot will appear in the 2015 release as Wonder Woman. There’s no indication yet exactly how much Gadot will have to do in the film (or if her role is merely a setup for the inevitable big-screen Justice League).

Regardless, Collider caught up with Man of Steel star Amy Adams – who’s returning to portray Lois Lane in the sequel – and the Wonder Woman casting news came up. Here’s what Adams had to say:

“Oh, did they [announce Wonder Woman]? I don’t even know, see? So clearly I’m not the person to talk to… Now I know. But that’s awesome. I hope I get a scene with her… I think we start in February.”

A February 2014 start date makes perfect sense for a film of this scale (and may mean more casting announcements are imminent). After all, with all those heroes involved, Batman vs. Superman will surely need a lengthy post-production window to perfect all its effects shots.

As for Adams’ response to the Wonder Woman news, there are two ways to look at it. On the one hand, Adams could be playing coy with her knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the project. At this point, it’s fairly commonplace for the cast and crew of a much-anticipated project to do their part to perpetuate the mysteries of its production (see: Star Trek Into Darkness). However, the other (perhaps more likely?) possibility is that the character of Wonder Woman was a fairly late addition to the script and/or amounts to little more than a cameo.

Given the amount of story the Man of Steel follow-up promises to cover (including the burgeoning romance between Superman and Lois Lane), it makes sense that Wonder Woman (and perhaps other Justice League members) are featured in very minor appearances or even during a mid-credits or post-credits teaser for their team-up film.

Still, there’s every possibility that Batman vs. Superman will find a way to perfectly balance a number of superhero characters. In that case, is there any chance for sparks to fly between Superman and Wonder Woman, as they do in the comic books?

 Superhero Hype ran the possibility of such a love triangle by Adams:

“Am I interested [in a Lois-Superman-Wonder Woman love triangle]? I don’t know. I mean, we’ll see. I hope that I can be involved with a woman on screen where we’re not in a love triangle. That would be fun. Maybe where we team up together and we work as teammates instead of adversaries.”

Adams makes an excellent point here. Not only would a love triangle this early in Superman and Lois’s relationship seem premature, but it undermines all the effort Man of Steel put into modernizing Lois Lane from her traditional love interest/damsel in distress role. The first film portrayed her as a savvy journalist who ultimately proves herself a valuable ally to Superman, even keeping his identity secret. To follow that development by using the character primarily as part of a love triangle could be seen as a step backwards and undermine the strength the character showed in the first film.

Robert Yaniz Jr. blogs at Screen Rant.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.