Spinning off from here, I have a few movies that I can acknowledge are probably good, but can't get past an actor that I don't enjoy watching.
For example, Back to the Future - ok premise, well made movie... but Michael J Fox has always (aside from his run in Boston Legal) irritated me. Nothing against his ability as an actor, just one of those things. So who could have made it a great movie? Other potential candidates for the role were apparently Eric Stolz, C. Thomas Howell, Ralph Macchio and John Cusack. Not sure any of those would have been a big improvement, although looking at other actors around the same age, I'm not sure who would have been. Jim Carrey is around the same age... that would have been a very different movie! As is Tom Cruise. I think I'm actually stuck, here. So, short of waiting 30-odd years and making it with Robert Downey Jr and Tom Holland - who would have been a better Marty McFly?
And what's your movie and substitute actor choice?
Even though he was much better than I expected and I don't think he ruined the movie, I still can't fathom why Nicholas Cage was cast in The Color Out of Space.
LordofHats wrote: Even though he was much better than I expected and I don't think he ruined the movie, I still can't fathom why Nicholas Cage was cast in The Color Out of Space.
The same could be said about a lot of Nick Cage movies... He's always struck me as an odd choice for most of his action movies. Ghost Rider in particular seemed like really weird casting, although to be fair a different actor probably wouldn't have saved that one.
LordofHats wrote: Even though he was much better than I expected and I don't think he ruined the movie, I still can't fathom why Nicholas Cage was cast in The Color Out of Space.
That was my first thought too.
I found him so aggravating, that I struggled to get through the first part of the film.
LordofHats wrote: Even though he was much better than I expected and I don't think he ruined the movie, I still can't fathom why Nicholas Cage was cast in The Color Out of Space.
The same could be said about a lot of Nick Cage movies... He's always struck me as an odd choice for most of his action movies. Ghost Rider in particular seemed like really weird casting, although to be fair a different actor probably wouldn't have saved that one.
Agree 100%. The weird thing is that I liked him in earlier stuff like The Rock, 8mm, Snake Eyes, and Con Air....then his acting seemed to fall off a cliff.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Replace Jared Leto in any movie with either: a) I dunno Skeet Ulrich? or b) a potato.
Replace the actors in Valerian with the actors from Jupiter Ascending...pretty much any pair of actors with charisma and chemistry.
This is hard.
My 'Leto' is Johnny Depp. as even recent troubles aside, he hasn't delivered anything of note this century* he's been on a 20 year slide, just us tech-tricks to replace him with Sam Rockwell
*maybe Jack Sparrow, in the first Pirates, but even then his antics detracted from Will and Elizabeth's arcs
Jesse Eisenberg in Batman vs Superman - he ruined that film with that performance. Although to be fair it depends on if the capering mad idiot Loopy Lex was what he was asked to do or not.
IMO it needed someone to make Lex a serious, dangerous threat - not a monkey throwing bannas out of its cage and hoping they would stick to the plot.
Sometimes its difficult ot know if the actor would actually change the tone, script etc of a film and make it better - ie not a fan of the most recent bond films as I find them dull and slow but I don't think that as issue with Daniel Craig but it might be....
Tom Cruise in The Mummy. Tom Cruise playing that character that’s meant to be a 6’ 20” beefcake, and not a 5’ Nowt lunatic.
There’s a really, really good FactFiend about Cruise’s detrimental effect upon The Mummy. In short, and from memory, he basically had it re- written to focus more on him.
It doesn’t help the character is an unrepentant scumbag of course. But Cruise just chews the scenery to the degree any hint of anti-hero goes out the window.
Episode 1. Poor Jake Lloyd. Whilst I did not enjoy his performance at all, it is important to remember he was just a kid. But then, Haley Joel Osment and indeed the Potter leads are evidence that being a kid does not necessarily mean you’re a bad actor.
Unfortunately he delivered all his lines flatly, and without recognisable emotion. Now, how much was a lack of acting ability, and how much bad direction I don’t care to speculate.
Poor old Anakin. If it wasn’t for Clone Wars, he’d remain a whiny little whiner in pop culture.
Automatically Appended Next Post: FactFiend vid I mentioned. Please be aware language is PG-13.
Mr Morden wrote: Jesse Eisenberg in Batman vs Superman - he ruined that film with that performance. Although to be fair it depends on if the capering mad idiot Loopy Lex was what he was asked to do or not.
IMO it needed someone to make Lex a serious, dangerous threat - not a monkey throwing bannas out of its cage and hoping they would stick to the plot.
Sometimes its difficult ot know if the actor would actually change the tone, script etc of a film and make it better - ie not a fan of the most recent bond films as I find them dull and slow but I don't think that as issue with Daniel Craig but it might be....
to be fair nobody came out of Dawn well, as for comedy Lex I'm think that was a bad choice, among many, above Mr Eisenberg, presumably he got the gig off the back of Social Network and a even more sinister version of his Zuckerburg would have been fine but Snyder don't do subtle
Mr Morden wrote: Jesse Eisenberg in Batman vs Superman - he ruined that film with that performance. Although to be fair it depends on if the capering mad idiot Loopy Lex was what he was asked to do or not.
IMO it needed someone to make Lex a serious, dangerous threat - not a monkey throwing bannas out of its cage and hoping they would stick to the plot.
Sometimes its difficult ot know if the actor would actually change the tone, script etc of a film and make it better - ie not a fan of the most recent bond films as I find them dull and slow but I don't think that as issue with Daniel Craig but it might be....
to be fair nobody came out of Dawn well, as for comedy Lex I'm think that was a bad choice, among many, above Mr Eisenberg, presumably he got the gig off the back of Social Network and a even more sinister version of his Zuckerburg would have been fine but Snyder don't do subtle
I actually liked pretty much everyone else - Angry older Batman was good, Superman was fine, Wonder Woman was a scene stealer. Mr Eisenberg was great in Zombieland (not seen the sequal) but he seems to have thought his Loopy Lex was great?
His loopy Lex, assuming he was asked to play that, was fine. Given his book of work I tend to blame the director on that one. That'd be like blaming Natalie Portman or Ewan McGregor for the poop show that was Episode 1.
I'm in agreement on Depp. It's to the point I won't pay to see a movie he's in. I was so mad when they swapped him for Colin Ferrel in the first fantastic beasts. He would have been far superior to Depp in the second one. Depp literally has one character, I'd argue he's worse than Cage that way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Replace Jared Leto in any movie with either: a) I dunno Skeet Ulrich? or b) a potato.
Replace the actors in Valerian with the actors from Jupiter Ascending...pretty much any pair of actors with charisma and chemistry.
This is hard.
My 'Leto' is Johnny Depp. as even recent troubles aside, he hasn't delivered anything of note this century* he's been on a 20 year slide, just us tech-tricks to replace him with Sam Rockwell
*maybe Jack Sparrow, in the first Pirates, but even then his antics detracted from Will and Elizabeth's arcs
Well...if you’re replacing with Sam Rockwell, there are few leading actors who shouldn’t be replaced.
I'm going to disagree completely with that one. That wasn't the chemistry or actors but the horrendous script and direction. Portman is an Oscar-winning actress. The cast in the prequels was excellent overall. But even Liam Neeson came off as wooden reciting all that awkward dialogue.
Sam Rockwell is on my short list of "do no wrong" actors. Even more so in the less popular films, like Moon, and the one where he's attending a sex-addict rehab program, etc.
I really thought the Hannibal Lecter movies would have been better with almost anyone but Hopkins playing Lecter.
APRIL FOOLS!
On a more serious note, I usually find Keanu Reeves' acting style, I.E. wandering thru scenes with a bewildered look on his face, somewhat underwhelming.
You know why they choose Keanu to play Klaatu in the day the earth stood still remake?
In order to portray an alien incapable of feeling human emotions, hoillywood caste an actor incapable of expressing any.
I honestly feel like Anthony Hopkins ruins TSOTL with his hammy overacting. He comes across like an old man Helena Bonham Carter, pure cringe. The other serial killer—whose actor never got any accolades—was far more sinister.
I think Keanu can be forgiven because he recognizes exactly what kind of actor he is. Not his fault if some movie makers want to give him a huge check to play the wrong role.
This might be a jerk opinion but Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Dark Knight. I know they couldn’t get Katie Holmes back, but I did not find her believable in that role. No charisma or likability yet she has two if the most powerful men in Gotham fighting over her? But that could have just been bad writing and no character development, rather than purely her performance.
Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker was also a huge mistake IMO. But I can’t think of anyone at the time that could have played a role that important for that trilogy.
This one will show my age but Kevin Costner as Robin Hood. Such a bad role for him and not that great of a movie, saved only by Alan Rickman. When I think of that Prince of Thieves movie, I think of a line from a different Robin Hood movie, Men in Tights where Cary Elwes says, “Unlike some Robin Hoods, I can speak in an English accent...” hahahaa
Musselman wrote: This might be a jerk opinion but Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Dark Knight. I know they couldn’t get Katie Holmes back, but I did not find her believable in that role. No charisma or likability yet she has two if the most powerful men in Gotham fighting over her? But that could have just been bad writing and no character development, rather than purely her performance.
You could put just about any actor change in there for me, even when it's for a better actor... I hate when a character is suddenly being played by someone else, as it's almost always immersion-breaking.
Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker was also a huge mistake IMO. But I can’t think of anyone at the time that could have played a role that important for that trilogy.
As was already mentioned, it's difficult to blame the issues with the characters in the Star Wars prequels on the actors. Hayden Christensen isn't anywhere near as bad an actor as his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker would lead people to believe... The problem with those characters was the director, not the actors.
This one will show my age but Kevin Costner as Robin Hood. Such a bad role for him and not that great of a movie, saved only by Alan Rickman. When I think of that Prince of Thieves movie, I think of a line from a different Robin Hood movie, Men in Tights where Cary Elwes says, “Unlike some Robin Hoods, I can speak in an English accent...” hahahaa
Despite the accent, I would disagree there. Prince of Thieves is cheesy enough to be fun, and if you overlook the fact that Kevin Costner does as competent a job of sounding like an English lord as Sean Connery does as a Russian Submarine Captain, it's far more watchable than, say, Russel Crowe's version of the story.
If the ability to de-age actors existed then that does now, Star Trek Nemisis would have been so much better if Patrick Stewart had played Shinzon as well as Picard in Nemisis. not to slight Tom Hardy but one of the many flaws with that movie was he just didn't sell a "young Picard raised in a gak enviroment"
BrianDavion wrote: If the ability to de-age actors existed then that does now, Star Trek Nemisis would have been so much better if Patrick Stewart had played Shinzon as well as Picard in Nemisis. not to slight Tom Hardy but one of the many flaws with that movie was he just didn't sell a "young Picard raised in a gak enviroment"
God, yes. It was like 'Oh, he's bald... He must be a clone of Picard!'
I mean, he was quite serviceable as a villain, there was just nothing whatsoever about him that suggested he was a young Jean-Luc, without them specifically saying so.
The only thing I'll say about Eisenberg's Luthor is if you've been around anyone with a genius IQ, they're every bit as phrenetic and flighty as Lex is in that movie during the party portion of it, and HYPER focused on things that matter to them or they deem warrants their entire attention. I think he hit that completely. Luthor shouldn't be played as a sociopath, he should be played as a narcissist and a genius with all the flaws that come with being a genius.
Now, let it be said that I think Christian Bale's lispy Batman was the worst portrayal ever, and I would sacrifice organs for a time machine to give that job to Thomas Jane.
The only thing I disliked about Bale's Batman was the neck on the later version of the suit.
Bane, on the other hand... I don't have a problem with him being different to the comic version, but what the hell was going on with that voice? (and yes, I know the official answer to that question, but it doesnt actually answer the question...)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I honestly feel like Anthony Hopkins ruins TSOTL with his hammy overacting. He comes across like an old man Helena Bonham Carter, pure cringe. The other serial killer—whose actor never got any accolades—was far more sinister.
I think Keanu can be forgiven because he recognizes exactly what kind of actor he is. Not his fault if some movie makers want to give him a huge check to play the wrong role.
Oh man, you really had me going for a second there!
Wow, I thought I did an april fools post, but yours just totally topped mine.
Just Tony wrote: The only thing I'll say about Eisenberg's Luthor is if you've been around anyone with a genius IQ, they're every bit as phrenetic and flighty as Lex is in that movie during the party portion of it, and HYPER focused on things that matter to them or they deem warrants their entire attention. I think he hit that completely. Luthor shouldn't be played as a sociopath, he should be played as a narcissist and a genius with all the flaws that come with being a genius.
Now, let it be said that I think Christian Bale's lispy Batman was the worst portrayal ever, and I would sacrifice organs for a time machine to give that job to Thomas Jane.
Yeah but for me it just came across another version (and a crap one) of the Joker without any reason to be that character....
I did not enjoy the Nolan era Batman but thats because I donlt like Nolan's films - Christain Bale was not great but he was not awful....just in a tedious series of films.
I would have liked to have seen Michael Fassbender play Luthor as a genius psyopath - as many high level successful businessmen are said to be...
insaniak wrote: The only thing I disliked about Bale's Batman was the neck on the later version of the suit.
Bane, on the other hand... I don't have a problem with him being different to the comic version, but what the hell was going on with that voice? (and yes, I know the official answer to that question, but it doesnt actually answer the question...)
Bane sounded like Boni. Boni also happens to be my Avatar on here.
How does Boni sound? Well, like Bane. But also more helpfully?
insaniak wrote: The only thing I disliked about Bale's Batman was the neck on the later version of the suit.
Bane, on the other hand... I don't have a problem with him being different to the comic version, but what the hell was going on with that voice? (and yes, I know the official answer to that question, but it doesnt actually answer the question...)
Bane sounded like Boni. Boni also happens to be my Avatar on here.
How does Boni sound? Well, like Bane. But also more helpfully?
insaniak wrote: The only thing I disliked about Bale's Batman was the neck on the later version of the suit.
Bane, on the other hand... I don't have a problem with him being different to the comic version, but what the hell was going on with that voice? (and yes, I know the official answer to that question, but it doesnt actually answer the question...)
Bane sounded like Boni. Boni also happens to be my Avatar on here.
How does Boni sound? Well, like Bane. But also more helpfully?
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
True. When someone has written the defining moment of a relationship as 'accepting someone after they've confessed to slaughtering noncombatants and children and announced that they want to institute absolute tyranny (to someone who's a staunch republican with pacifist leanings),' that's just not salvageable by any actor. The rest of the 'romantic' arc is inexcusably insipid, but that's just horrifying.
Any film ever where a character is meant to be Scottish, and the actor does an awful, unrecognisable version of the various accents of my homeland.
Because there are in fact a great many Scots actors and dialect coaches.
Yes. I am extremely sensitive about my accent. I’m proud of it, still have it after 30+ years of living in Kent, and cannot bride hearing it butchered.
Just Tony wrote: The only thing I'll say about Eisenberg's Luthor is if you've been around anyone with a genius IQ, they're every bit as phrenetic and flighty as Lex is in that movie during the party portion of it, and HYPER focused on things that matter to them or they deem warrants their entire attention. I think he hit that completely. Luthor shouldn't be played as a sociopath, he should be played as a narcissist and a genius with all the flaws that come with being a genius.
I've said this here before...the issue with Eisenberg wasn't the spastic stuff per se. IMO, it was that it wasn't balanced better. Early in BvS, there's that moment where he's negotiating for access to the ship. And for that one minute of that movie, he's really cold and calculating. And I think it really works.
Give me more of that, especially toward the end where he finally truly confronts Supes and Bats -- showing that he's also a bit of a reptile underneath all the crazy -- and I think it all would have been REALLY interesting and worked REALLY well. Gives Luthor his own 'secret identity' and a bigger reveal, you know? I do think that all freakshow all the time just makes him hard to take seriously. That's a problem for a character that's supposed to be the big (biggest in the universe short of Darkseid?) bad.
Eisenberg is a good actor and could have pulled this off easily, IMO. But he probably saw it as a silly comic movie and didn't see the harm in hamming it up. And the director is a 'dial it up to 11' kind of guy with just about everything he does, and so probably didn't see the harm in it either. Like a lot of things about that movie, there's some tragedy in what could have been.
Any film ever where a character is meant to be Scottish, and the actor does an awful, unrecognisable version of the various accents of my homeland.
Because there are in fact a great many Scots actors and dialect coaches.
Yes. I am extremely sensitive about my accent. I’m proud of it, still have it after 30+ years of living in Kent, and cannot bride hearing it butchered.
Shoot, I'm not even British, but whatever Costner was doing in Robin Hood and whatever Keanu was doing in Dracula offended ME. Good lord, just use an American accent if you can't do anything remotely passable.
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
True. When someone has written the defining moment of a relationship as 'accepting someone after they've confessed to slaughtering noncombatants and children and announced that they want to institute absolute tyranny (to someone who's a staunch republican with pacifist leanings),' that's just not salvageable by any actor. The rest of the 'romantic' arc is inexcusably insipid, but that's just horrifying.
Ummm, in all fairness to anakin, the tusken did kidnap, torture and murder his mother who died in his arms. That kinda makes going dalek on that village understandable. I would likely have done the same.
The tusken seem to be sorta like orcs or goblins in D&D, an evil race with no redeeming qualities who is simply an enemy to be defeated, driven off or wiped out.
Just Tony wrote: The only thing I'll say about Eisenberg's Luthor is if you've been around anyone with a genius IQ, they're every bit as phrenetic and flighty as Lex is in that movie during the party portion of it, and HYPER focused on things that matter to them or they deem warrants their entire attention. I think he hit that completely. Luthor shouldn't be played as a sociopath, he should be played as a narcissist and a genius with all the flaws that come with being a genius.
Except that's never been the way Lex Luthor has been depicted. Lex may be very smart, but I was always under the impression he bought whatever genius he needed rather than depend solely on his own intelligence. He's a 'big picture' man, a CEO, not the guy in the lab who makes the breakthrough but the leader who sees the implications of the breakthrough... and how to use it for his PERSONAL maximum benefit. Ruthless enough to let millions die if it would benefit him... and intelligent enough to save them if there's a way he can benefit from their lives instead. Narcissistic, yes, sociopath, yes, but not to the point of being crippled by it.
I suppose the only real explanation for this discrepancy is that Lex was being driven mad by his (however indirect) contact with Steppenwolf and Apocalypse (Yes, I know that's not how DC spells the character's name). Perhaps once they finish that plotline out Lex can recover from his madness, and be the ruthless magnificent b*****d he's supposed to be.
EDIT: My bad, Darkseid is the villian, Apocalypse is the world he rules from. Silly me...
Any film ever where a character is meant to be Scottish, and the actor does an awful, unrecognisable version of the various accents of my homeland.
Because there are in fact a great many Scots actors and dialect coaches.
Yes. I am extremely sensitive about my accent. I’m proud of it, still have it after 30+ years of living in Kent, and cannot bride hearing it butchered.
Considering all the British actors who fake having American accents, maybe we can just chalk this up to mutual assured annoyance.
Lex is a lot like Joker in that he's been around so long he's got lots of aspects in different iterations of the character.
Mad scientist/super genius Luthor was the Luthor of the silver age. Corporate CEO Luthor is a much more modern depiction that owes a lot to Superman The Animated Series.
I think the real issue with Eisenberg's Luthor really is that he feels fake, like everything in that movie. His grudge with Superman feels manufactured rather than real. His plan to get Batman and Superman to fight feels like it solely exists because it's what drives the plot forward, not because it's something Luthor himself actually wants. His unleashing of Doomsday is a massive idiot ball moment that completely clashes with the rest of the movie.
I think problems with Eisenberg's Luthor are less issues with the actor and more issues with the god awful script he was working with.
insaniak wrote: The only thing I disliked about Bale's Batman was the neck on the later version of the suit.
Bane, on the other hand... I don't have a problem with him being different to the comic version, but what the hell was going on with that voice? (and yes, I know the official answer to that question, but it doesnt actually answer the question...)
Bane sounded like Boni. Boni also happens to be my Avatar on here.
How does Boni sound? Well, like Bane. But also more helpfully?
Any film ever where a character is meant to be Scottish, and the actor does an awful, unrecognisable version of the various accents of my homeland.
Because there are in fact a great many Scots actors and dialect coaches.
Yes. I am extremely sensitive about my accent. I’m proud of it, still have it after 30+ years of living in Kent, and cannot bride hearing it butchered.
could be worse, the assumption that everyone from Bristol and west of it sounds like Vicki Pollard, a Pirate or Samwise, we've had 'lectric for some time now and telly too so apart from the most out over bits of out over its pretty subdued
What irks me is that Scotland has distinct accents, depending upon where a person is from.
Highlands and Islands, where my family can be traced back to is really quite melodic. An odd mix of Scottish and Norwegian. Glasgow is harsher than Edinburgh on the vowels. And even with Edinburgh, there are differences.
I’ll give an example in prose. Hopefully it’ll kinda make sense....
In Morning Side, rates are vermin in the cellar, and sex is something the coalman brings the coal in,
Just,.....if you want a regional accent? Try to hire a regional actor, or a regional dialect coach. Don’t just do your impression.
Matt Swain wrote: The tusken seem to be sorta like orcs or goblins in D&D, an evil race with no redeeming qualities who is simply an enemy to be defeated, driven off or wiped out.
That, in and on itself, is extremely poor writting both in the fantasy genre (with maybe a small exception for Tolkien's take on orcs as tortured monsters into madness instead of a proper "race" of people) and even more so in the science-fiction genre
Just Tony wrote: The only thing I'll say about Eisenberg's Luthor is if you've been around anyone with a genius IQ, they're every bit as phrenetic and flighty as Lex is in that movie during the party portion of it, and HYPER focused on things that matter to them or they deem warrants their entire attention. I think he hit that completely. Luthor shouldn't be played as a sociopath, he should be played as a narcissist and a genius with all the flaws that come with being a genius.
Except that's never been the way Lex Luthor has been depicted. Lex may be very smart, but I was always under the impression he bought whatever genius he needed rather than depend solely on his own intelligence. He's a 'big picture' man, a CEO, not the guy in the lab who makes the breakthrough but the leader who sees the implications of the breakthrough... and how to use it for his PERSONAL maximum benefit. Ruthless enough to let millions die if it would benefit him... and intelligent enough to save them if there's a way he can benefit from their lives instead. Narcissistic, yes, sociopath, yes, but not to the point of being crippled by it.
LOL. Up until the Crisis in 1985, Lex WAS a mad scientist who got his hands dirty all the time. Not a wealthy businessman. I'm not sure what he was supposed to be in Superman the Movie, but that didn't reflect the Lex Luthor for the decades leading up to it.
In recent years, they've worked the genius and hands-on components back into the character. At one point, he even started wearing a suit with an S to be Metropolis' new 'Superman'.
Spoiler:
@LordofHats -- The animated series Luthor was based on the post-Crisis Luthor. But yeah, they're the same iteration.
What irks me is that Scotland has distinct accents, depending upon where a person is from.
Highlands and Islands, where my family can be traced back to is really quite melodic. An odd mix of Scottish and Norwegian. Glasgow is harsher than Edinburgh on the vowels. And even with Edinburgh, there are differences.
I’ll give an example in prose. Hopefully it’ll kinda make sense....
In Morning Side, rates are vermin in the cellar, and sex is something the coalman brings the coal in,
Just,.....if you want a regional accent? Try to hire a regional actor, or a regional dialect coach. Don’t just do your impression.
Given the various attempts at Australian accents in American films over the years, I can feel your pain.
This one will show my age but Kevin Costner as Robin Hood. Such a bad role for him and not that great of a movie, saved only by Alan Rickman. When I think of that Prince of Thieves movie, I think of a line from a different Robin Hood movie, Men in Tights where Cary Elwes says, “Unlike some Robin Hoods, I can speak in an English accent...” hahahaa
Robin Hood movies peaked with Errol Flynn. Anything that came after was superfluous at best.
I'll give the Mel Brooks version a pass for being a parody.
To my surprise, the first movie that came to mind when I read the thread title was Captain Marvel. Now, i don't hate Brie Larson, and I certainly don't think she was the worst choice ever to play the character, but I also don't think she was the best either. She doesn't definitively nail the character for me in the way that Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans have for their respective roles.
creeping-deth87 wrote: To my surprise, the first movie that came to mind when I read the thread title was Captain Marvel. Now, i don't hate Brie Larson, and I certainly don't think she was the worst choice ever to play the character, but I also don't think she was the best either. She doesn't definitively nail the character for me in the way that Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans have for their respective roles.
I enjoyed Captain Marvel, and I don't get all the complaining online about Larson. I'll admit, though, that I have no attachment or particular knowledge of the character in the comics, so my impression was based solely on the movie itself, rather than any prior expectations.
Other than the switch of actor for War Machine, I struggle to find fault with any of the casting for the Marvel movies. (ok, technically Ruffalo was an actor change as well, but I tend to view the Hulk movie as a separate entity to the rest of the Marvel series).
Captain Marvel would have been better with an actress with more energy...or a less dour disposition. Who was the actress who played Rita Repulsa in the new Power Rangers? She probably could have pulled it off.
Brie Larson, with her intensity, would have been a better Rey, though.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Replace Jared Leto in any movie with either: a) I dunno Skeet Ulrich? or b) a potato.
Replace the actors in Valerian with the actors from Jupiter Ascending...pretty much any pair of actors with charisma and chemistry.
This is hard.
I loved Jared Leto in Lord of War and Requiem for a Dream, but truthfully I think it might be just because those are great movies and he can ride their coattails. Otherwise he is swamp garbage.
Mr Morden wrote: Jesse Eisenberg in Batman vs Superman - he ruined that film with that performance.
I like him just fine in other stuff, but that was probably the worst casting decision in any movie I've ever seen. It would still have not been a particularly good movie but he definitely took the steaming dook on top of the sundae.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I honestly feel like Anthony Hopkins ruins TSOTL with his hammy overacting. He comes across like an old man Helena Bonham Carter, pure cringe.
I have liked HBC since at least the 90s, and I gotta be honest, playing that witch in Harry Potter only intensified that. If I were Tim Burton I'd probably request she dress up as Bellatrix all the time.
Here's what wayne himself said about the movie: The Duke himself went on record as saying (after this film spectacular critical and financial failure); "The moral of the story is don't make an ass of yourself playing roles you aren't suited for."
Automatically Appended Next Post: TBH the luthor in BvS was horrible no matter who played him.
Lex Luthor should have been played as a serious man who believed humanity could not rely on a single alien's good will for survival and that humanity must take it's future in its own hands, yes, much as Affleck's batman did.
But he should also have been portrayed as ego-maniacal and vain enough to believe he and he alone could save humanity, and very ruthless about it to show batman a mirror of his own views on superman.
Instead we get a childish fool that is nothing but contemptible. To make luthor honestly believe only he can save the world would have given him some more depth, a genius who is utterly conceited and has deluded himself into believing he must save the world as a subconscious sop to his own ego.
That could have been a bearable character. Maybe if he threatened superman;s parents, the kents, and batman saw that and realized luthor was going too far then turned on him things could have made a better movie.
As it the luthor in BVS was just so unlikable and irritating he was nothing but a strawman.
creeping-deth87 wrote: To my surprise, the first movie that came to mind when I read the thread title was Captain Marvel. Now, i don't hate Brie Larson, and I certainly don't think she was the worst choice ever to play the character, but I also don't think she was the best either. She doesn't definitively nail the character for me in the way that Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans have for their respective roles.
I enjoyed Captain Marvel, and I don't get all the complaining online about Larson. I'll admit, though, that I have no attachment or particular knowledge of the character in the comics, so my impression was based solely on the movie itself, rather than any prior expectations.
Other than the switch of actor for War Machine, I struggle to find fault with any of the casting for the Marvel movies. (ok, technically Ruffalo was an actor change as well, but I tend to view the Hulk movie as a separate entity to the rest of the Marvel series).
Agree completely - really enjoyed Cap M and thought Ms Larson was perfectly good in the role.
Marvel acting choices have been as impressive as everything else in the franchise.
"I say ol'chaps - I am Khan Noonian Singh and a bit of a rough customer. Fancy a pint of bitter down the pub? Shall I bring Archie, Gladis and Beryl?"
I would say Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, in Star Trek into Darkness, despite a sterling performance.
In the 1960s Ricardo Montalban, a mexican actor portrayed the Indian conquerer and might be down to racial politics in america at the time. Its interesting to note that Ricardo and Madlyn Rhue( who played Lt McGivers in Space Seed ) also played Native Americans, once again in a romantic light, in an episode of Bonanza(sadly, I forget the episode, but it might still be on Youtube). Even during a time of prejudice, the character of Khan was still of Indian heritage and part of his onscreen prescence - McGivers falls in love with that handsome historical figure, as Khan discovers as he uncovers a painting she has done of him. I guess you could say that we "got the picture".
There is far less indication of Khan's heritage in Wrath of Khan, and is once again portrayed by Ricardo with an even younger crew(what the duece? How come Khan has aged and nobody else?). At least here we can say that we feel comfortable with the same actor although for many of us in the 1980s...we probably hadn't seen or even remembered Space Seed and could have done with a little recap of Khan's background beyond "Years ago, I ruled as a prince". His desert robes might have been designed with indian fashions in mind, but we dont immediately recognise it as such. But as a sequel to that episode the background had already been covered.
But with a new cast, and in an age of diversity...Khan is simply a white Englishman named "Khan". While Benedict did a top job to portray a genetically-enhanced criminal(quite scary with that face-grip of his!), its clear that the creative team couldn't be bothered to watch Space Seed - an episode that has been legendary since the early 1980s when WOK reminded us of it. And here is the thing; even if they had cast an equally talented Indian actor, there was still nothing in the film that told us of Khan's interesting heritage. As an Indian who ruled most of the world with a iron fist...such a wasted opportunity. This is after films that prove Indian actors are relevent in films such as Slumdog Millionare and Life of Pi.
The sad thing about this is that Benedict may not have been miscast at all, but simply given the wrong role to play. He didn't need to be Khan, but just a rival remanant of the Eugenics War. Lets face it, most of the audience is probably familar with Wrath of Khan( considered the ESB of the Trek movies ) and we know straight away that Khan is a villian(Shatner's "Khan!" is legendary). But a rival superhuman, maybe seen as an underdog resisting Khan's rule by history, and Admiral Marcus believes that "John Harrison" is proof that Eugenics might not be a complete failure. Of course, with Khan out of the picture and no longer struggling against his superior resources, is like a kid in a candy shop and no one to say "oi! put it back" and ultimately proves - once again - the folly of eugenics, and the fact is that Khan was as "good as they got"...
So yeah, that was a bit of a cockup. Its up there with the Orange Board suggesting to Sean Austin that they make the "forth in the trilogy"....
Ahtman wrote: Don't forget mad scientist Luthor was the one that stole all the Hostess Fruit Pies.
He’s a bad one.
Wait a minute. You're telling me we had to sit through the Christopher Nolan trilogy, Man of Steel, the Justice Movies, Suicide Squad, Joker and Birds of Prey...and they had THIS all along?
insaniak wrote:Other than the switch of actor for War Machine, I struggle to find fault with any of the casting for the Marvel movies. (ok, technically Ruffalo was an actor change as well, but I tend to view the Hulk movie as a separate entity to the rest of the Marvel series).
Okay, I just caught this part. You seriously thought Terrence Howard was a good Rhodey??!?!?!?! So you have someone who can't convincingly pull off a heavy OR a military man playing both simultaneously? No, Cheadle was the best thing that happened to the Iron Man movies.
Well, other than seeing the Silver Centurion armor for, what, 3 minutes or so?
I wasn't particularly attached to Terrence Howard specifically, I just hate when characters change actors. You can get away with it when there's an age gap to explain the difference, but having someone just change into a completely different person next week is immersion breaking.
I mean, The Mountain had three at least. And when minor characters got promoted to more prominent roles, it meant a whole lot of ‘wait, who are you again?’
I mean, The Mountain had three at least. And when minor characters got promoted to more prominent roles, it meant a whole lot of ‘wait, who are you again?’
Petyrs accent is also highly variable!
Perhaps a homage to the novels which are full to bursting of (IMO) pointles, dull characters that the author can live through.
Through the first five seasons GOT did a brilliant job of gutting out so much crap that had bloated the novels
Of course they did really get Dorne wrong and the final two seasons but ''That is known, Khalisi"
Still not sure we can entirely lay the blame at the show’s door. I’m increasingly confident JRRM doesn’t have an end game in mind, hence his eternal procrastinating.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Still not sure we can entirely lay the blame at the show’s door. I’m increasingly confident JRRM doesn’t have an end game in mind, hence his eternal procrastinating.
true and whilst not defending him or the chucklehead show runners at least he knows what not to do now, it'll be some other protracted boswellow, I'm hoping for aliens or time travel
also totally with Mr M about Dorne, it felt like the bit in other shows when the characters go on holiday somewhere delibrately different (although SoA goes to O'Ireland is still the best worst version)
creeping-deth87 wrote: To my surprise, the first movie that came to mind when I read the thread title was Captain Marvel. Now, i don't hate Brie Larson, and I certainly don't think she was the worst choice ever to play the character, but I also don't think she was the best either. She doesn't definitively nail the character for me in the way that Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans have for their respective roles.
I enjoyed Captain Marvel, and I don't get all the complaining online about Larson. I'll admit, though, that I have no attachment or particular knowledge of the character in the comics, so my impression was based solely on the movie itself, rather than any prior expectations.
Other than the switch of actor for War Machine, I struggle to find fault with any of the casting for the Marvel movies. (ok, technically Ruffalo was an actor change as well, but I tend to view the Hulk movie as a separate entity to the rest of the Marvel series).
Get ready for them to do an actress change in Antman 3 as well. Evangeline Lily seems to have pissed off the entire world with her “screw Covid-19, I do what I want” attitude, and there is talk that she’s getting kicked from scripts left and right. A3 has her role seriously diminished because of her attitude, but if she puts up too much of a stink over it, they might just replace her and keep on going.
she's not even a good enough actress; to hide the "just here for the payday" face, so no great loss, least Ms Larson can managed that most of the time, not sure if its mad skills acting or thinking of the even more money makes it easier
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
True. When someone has written the defining moment of a relationship as 'accepting someone after they've confessed to slaughtering noncombatants and children and announced that they want to institute absolute tyranny (to someone who's a staunch republican with pacifist leanings),' that's just not salvageable by any actor. The rest of the 'romantic' arc is inexcusably insipid, but that's just horrifying.
Ummm, in all fairness to anakin, the tusken did kidnap, torture and murder his mother who died in his arms. That kinda makes going dalek on that village understandable. I would likely have done the same.
The tusken seem to be sorta like orcs or goblins in D&D, an evil race with no redeeming qualities who is simply an enemy to be defeated, driven off or wiped out.
He specifically mentions murdering children (not just the torturers and guards, which I could see a lot of people giving a pass on). Even if your D&D comparison is accurate, even D&D grew out of 'its OK to murder orc babies' alignment discussions 30 years ago.
That this scenes solidifies their romantic relationship is just gross.
""I…I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals."
This is when your romantic interest should run away screaming. Or call the space police. Or demand Kenobi gets Annie some serious therapy, because its really past obvious that the kid needs it, and a whole temple of psychic empaths should have some measure of a clue about it.
If it were part of some convoluted plot where the Emperor uses the gruesome death of his mother to solidify the grip of the Dark Side on Anakin, it would've had a place in the narrative. But no, this is just something Anakin does on his own, and for whatever reason this causes Padme to go from hesitant and non-committal to 'relationship, woo!'
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
True. When someone has written the defining moment of a relationship as 'accepting someone after they've confessed to slaughtering noncombatants and children and announced that they want to institute absolute tyranny (to someone who's a staunch republican with pacifist leanings),' that's just not salvageable by any actor. The rest of the 'romantic' arc is inexcusably insipid, but that's just horrifying.
Ummm, in all fairness to anakin, the tusken did kidnap, torture and murder his mother who died in his arms. That kinda makes going dalek on that village understandable. I would likely have done the same.
The tusken seem to be sorta like orcs or goblins in D&D, an evil race with no redeeming qualities who is simply an enemy to be defeated, driven off or wiped out.
He specifically mentions murdering children (not just the torturers and guards, which I could see a lot of people giving a pass on). Even if your D&D comparison is accurate, even D&D grew out of 'its OK to murder orc babies' alignment discussions 30 years ago.
That this scenes solidifies their romantic relationship is just gross.
""I…I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals."
This is when your romantic interest should run away screaming. Or call the space police. Or demand Kenobi gets Annie some serious therapy, because its really past obvious that the kid needs it, and a whole temple of psychic empaths should have some measure of a clue about it.
If it were part of some convoluted plot where the Emperor uses the gruesome death of his mother to solidify the grip of the Dark Side on Anakin, it would've had a place in the narrative. But no, this is just something Anakin does on his own, and for whatever reason this causes Padme to go from hesitant and non-committal to 'relationship, woo!'
Fair enough.
Someone mark the calendar, you are officially seeing someone change their mind based on points raised in an internet discussion. A true modern miracle!
Those are very convincing points. It's hard to imagine any actor/actress combination that could make that relationship believable. I can only assume that, having only watched the movie once, I had convinced myself that it was the actors who had fallen short, and forgotten just how bad the script was. Mea culpa.
insaniak wrote:I wasn't particularly attached to Terrence Howard specifically, I just hate when characters change actors. You can get away with it when there's an age gap to explain the difference, but having someone just change into a completely different person next week is immersion breaking.
I'd agree for the most part, but occasionally (cough)Edward Norton(cough) the original actor is so godawful that they NEED replaced. And Howard met that requirement.
Vulcan wrote: AotC. ANY pair of actor/actress who had some chemistry to replace Portman and Christensen. Literally anyone.
That to me wasn't at all the fault of the actors. It was a catastrophy of the script and direction. How can you not sound like a fething idiot with such script and direction.
True. When someone has written the defining moment of a relationship as 'accepting someone after they've confessed to slaughtering noncombatants and children and announced that they want to institute absolute tyranny (to someone who's a staunch republican with pacifist leanings),' that's just not salvageable by any actor. The rest of the 'romantic' arc is inexcusably insipid, but that's just horrifying.
Ummm, in all fairness to anakin, the tusken did kidnap, torture and murder his mother who died in his arms. That kinda makes going dalek on that village understandable. I would likely have done the same.
The tusken seem to be sorta like orcs or goblins in D&D, an evil race with no redeeming qualities who is simply an enemy to be defeated, driven off or wiped out.
He specifically mentions murdering children (not just the torturers and guards, which I could see a lot of people giving a pass on). Even if your D&D comparison is accurate, even D&D grew out of 'its OK to murder orc babies' alignment discussions 30 years ago.
That this scenes solidifies their romantic relationship is just gross.
""I…I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals."
This is when your romantic interest should run away screaming. Or call the space police. Or demand Kenobi gets Annie some serious therapy, because its really past obvious that the kid needs it, and a whole temple of psychic empaths should have some measure of a clue about it.
If it were part of some convoluted plot where the Emperor uses the gruesome death of his mother to solidify the grip of the Dark Side on Anakin, it would've had a place in the narrative. But no, this is just something Anakin does on his own, and for whatever reason this causes Padme to go from hesitant and non-committal to 'relationship, woo!'
Fair enough.
Someone mark the calendar, you are officially seeing someone change their mind based on points raised in an internet discussion. A true modern miracle!
Those are very convincing points. It's hard to imagine any actor/actress combination that could make that relationship believable. I can only assume that, having only watched the movie once, I had convinced myself that it was the actors who had fallen short, and forgotten just how bad the script was. Mea culpa.
I kind of agree with your overall point, but I also consider that scene to be the best bit of acting Hayden Christensen is able to demonstrate in the films; to me he really captures someone who is angry and scared, scared mainly because he is angry and doesn’t know hoe to stop. There’s a real tortured confusion to his performance and even at the time it convinced me that he was getting a lot of stick for a script/plot/direction that is not his fault.
SamusDrake wrote: "I say ol'chaps - I am Khan Noonian Singh and a bit of a rough customer. Fancy a pint of bitter down the pub? Shall I bring Archie, Gladis and Beryl?"
I would say Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, in Star Trek into Darkness, despite a sterling performance.
2 pages into the thread before I saw this. . .was about to put this one forward myself. . . . As I was reading through your comment, I thought of a person who may possibly have done a better job at Khan in the reboot:
insaniak wrote:I wasn't particularly attached to Terrence Howard specifically, I just hate when characters change actors. You can get away with it when there's an age gap to explain the difference, but having someone just change into a completely different person next week is immersion breaking.
I'd agree for the most part, but occasionally (cough)Edward Norton(cough) the original actor is so godawful that they NEED replaced. And Howard met that requirement.
Lol. . . I happen to like a lot of Ed Norton's work. . . but aspects of that particular movie, well, I'm not sure if it was him as an actor, a shoddy script, or what. . . but you're right. He didn't fit. . . And Tim Roth as Abomination didn't really work for me either.
Oh man, deffo have to agree on Cumberbatch and Khan. Benny C is an awesome actor, and his presence in that movie was great, but casting him as "Khan Noonien Sing", particularly given the performance of Ricardo Montalban in that role, was a grievous mistake, and it didn't work. They should have created an entirely different bad guy for that movie. Ben Kingsley would have been a fantastic option.
I'm not sure if it would have been better or not, but I would quite like to see the alternate-universe version of The Matrix where Will Smith did accept the role of Neo.
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man, deffo have to agree on Cumberbatch and Khan. Benny C is an awesome actor, and his presence in that movie was great, but casting him as "Khan Noonien Sing", particularly given the performance of Ricardo Montalban in that role, was a grievous mistake, and it didn't work. They should have created an entirely different bad guy for that movie. Ben Kingsley would have been a fantastic option.
Cumberbatch would have been excellent as one of Khan's genetic supermen. He just wasn't a good Khan.
Anyway, I think Antonio Banderas would have been better in The Phantom of the Opera.
2 pages into the thread before I saw this. . .was about to put this one forward myself. . . . As I was reading through your comment, I thought of a person who may possibly have done a better job at Khan in the reboot:
Ben Kingsley.
.
Ben certainly has the heritage...not so sure about his physique though. Khan is supposed to be a genetically enhanced super human.
Ben certainly has the heritage...not so sure about his physique though. Khan is supposed to be a genetically enhanced super human.
THAT said...
"He's a one-man-wreaking-crew!"
He has played older, former military types (house of sand and fog, as I recall), and one could easily use hand-wavium to explain why a diminutive ben kingsley looks as he does as Khan (ie, the freezing process took a lot out of him, adm marcus was depriving him of X, whatever the case may be), and while I think that Montalban had the physique (of the day) for genetic enhancement, I also think he played Khan as being a bit more cerebral (well, until WOK when he became unhinged) rather than relying solely on his physique
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man, deffo have to agree on Cumberbatch and Khan. Benny C is an awesome actor, and his presence in that movie was great, but casting him as "Khan Noonien Sing", particularly given the performance of Ricardo Montalban in that role, was a grievous mistake, and it didn't work. They should have created an entirely different bad guy for that movie. Ben Kingsley would have been a fantastic option.
The first batch of previews for Into Darkness had a bunch of us thinking that Benny C was going to be playing Gary Mitchell, and they should have stuck with that. Marcus weaponizing a suddenly telekinetic Starfleet officer, it would have still fit what the film was aiming for.
I kind of agree with your overall point, but I also consider that scene to be the best bit of acting Hayden Christensen is able to demonstrate in the films; to me he really captures someone who is angry and scared, scared mainly because he is angry and doesn’t know hoe to stop. There’s a real tortured confusion to his performance and even at the time it convinced me that he was getting a lot of stick for a script/plot/direction that is not his fault.
Yeah that particular scene is one of my favorite Anakin scenes for me. What didn't work for me how nonchalant padme was about it.
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man, deffo have to agree on Cumberbatch and Khan. Benny C is an awesome actor, and his presence in that movie was great, but casting him as "Khan Noonien Sing", particularly given the performance of Ricardo Montalban in that role, was a grievous mistake, and it didn't work. They should have created an entirely different bad guy for that movie. Ben Kingsley would have been a fantastic option.
The first batch of previews for Into Darkness had a bunch of us thinking that Benny C was going to be playing Gary Mitchell, and they should have stuck with that. Marcus weaponizing a suddenly telekinetic Starfleet officer, it would have still fit what the film was aiming for.
Now that would have been a good choice. For what its worth, there is a cast-backed fan film where Gary and "Charle X" have at each other, and gotta say it was pretty good. Starred the actual actors from the 60s.
He has played older, former military types (house of sand and fog, as I recall), and one could easily use hand-wavium to explain why a diminutive ben kingsley looks as he does as Khan (ie, the freezing process took a lot out of him, adm marcus was depriving him of X, whatever the case may be), and while I think that Montalban had the physique (of the day) for genetic enhancement, I also think he played Khan as being a bit more cerebral (well, until WOK when he became unhinged) rather than relying solely on his physique
"depriving him of X" would actually be a good reason as to why Marcus would have a leash on Khan. For me it would be a bit of a stretch, but some people appreciate that extra twist, I suppose. It would have been interesting to see how it would have played out.
Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher was a crime. The character is supposed to be a 6'5" tall giant, and you cast a scrawny 5'7" Tom Cruise just because of his name. I just couldn't take the scene with him fighting 4 guys at once seriously at all.
DrGiggles wrote: Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher was a crime. The character is supposed to be a 6'5" tall giant, and you cast a scrawny 5'7" Tom Cruise just because of his name. I just couldn't take the scene with him fighting 4 guys at once seriously at all.
oh aye the film clearly needed some of that hobbity forced perspective or the chap that did the wedding photos
normally i'm not to fussed about things like that it but wee Tommy C doesn't even have a scary screen presence to stretch over the gap
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man, deffo have to agree on Cumberbatch and Khan. Benny C is an awesome actor, and his presence in that movie was great, but casting him as "Khan Noonien Sing", particularly given the performance of Ricardo Montalban in that role, was a grievous mistake, and it didn't work. They should have created an entirely different bad guy for that movie. Ben Kingsley would have been a fantastic option.
The first batch of previews for Into Darkness had a bunch of us thinking that Benny C was going to be playing Gary Mitchell, and they should have stuck with that. Marcus weaponizing a suddenly telekinetic Starfleet officer, it would have still fit what the film was aiming for.
DrGiggles wrote: Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher was a crime. The character is supposed to be a 6'5" tall giant, and you cast a scrawny 5'7" Tom Cruise just because of his name. I just couldn't take the scene with him fighting 4 guys at once seriously at all.
oh aye the film clearly needed some of that hobbity forced perspective or the chap that did the wedding photos
normally i'm not to fussed about things like that it but wee Tommy C doesn't even have a scary screen presence to stretch over the gap
I mean, the wee tommy C type actor playing "infamous hitman/assassin type who is amazing at all the things including gunz and karate chops and wimmenz" doesn't bother me so much. One does not need size to be an incredible fighter, etc. . . . But i do agree that him being an already established character, who was established at a certain height doesn't really work EDIT: by this I mean those characters who, in movie terms are legends within the film. . . Ie, an Agent 47 from Hitman, within that movie franchise, seems like everyone with a name had heard whispers about this bloke, even if they didn't actually know what he looked like. . . or, the assassins creed games where blending in is a huge part of the game.
It would be like casting Kevin Hart to play as Shaquille O'Neal in Shaq's biopic movie.
Coming this Fall - 'Ba$ketball' - starring Kevin Hart as Shaquille O'Neal, Chris Rock as Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise as Charles Barkley and Tina Fey as Dennis Rodman! Special guest appearance by Eddie Murphy as Kim Jong-un!
BrianDavion wrote:that would have required the average film going audiance to know who Gary Mitchel WAS.
Yeah, because they couldn't explain it in the movie. Hell, nobody knew who Mitchell was in the episode until you were told, and that was only 45 minutes of air time to explain everything. That had to be the worst non-reason anyone has come up with on this site.
insaniak wrote: Coming this Fall - 'Ba$ketball' - starring Kevin Hart as Shaquille O'Neal, Chris Rock as Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise as Charles Barkley and Tina Fey as Dennis Rodman! Special guest appearance by Eddie Murphy as Kim Jong-un!
I would think Tom Cruise would be better suited to play Larry Bird (get the token white guy in!). Everyone else looks like a plan. Even TF as DR. I would watch that movie. But you also need Terry Crews to play Mugsy Bogus (sp).
...And I smell a Space Jam sequel. I can hear Bugs now...”you can write this gak doc, but you sure as hell can’t get people to say it”. That way we can get Chris to once again spout the line “George Lucas is gonna sue somebody’s ass!”
I think quarantine is beginning to hurt my brain. And the brain of anybody who follows what I just wrote.
Already happening, for some inexplicable reason. Has LeBron James in it.
Nostalgia googles!
<puts on Hipster hat> I much preferred Looney Tunes Back in Action than Space Jam.
Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies shorts are the best bar none. And that's not nostalgia, I have DVDs of a fair chunk of them in my collection right now and watch them semi-regularly.
Already happening, for some inexplicable reason. Has LeBron James in it.
Nostalgia googles!
<puts on Hipster hat> I much preferred Looney Tunes Back in Action than Space Jam.
Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies shorts are the best bar none. And that's not nostalgia, I have DVDs of a fair chunk of them in my collection right now and watch them semi-regularly.
a) This. I love Looney Tunes, particularly the Chuck Jones era. A comic genius, who also understood the comedy/tragedy relationship and would occasionally blindside you with genuine feelings.
b) It’s been a long while since I watched either, but I also remember preferring Back In Action to Space Jam. I particularly liked how they updated Wile E Coyote to the modern era.
I very much doubt that. WoK came out 30 years before Into Darkness. I would suspect that the only ID viewers under the age of 40 with any idea who Khan was would have been the actual Star Trek fans.
Anybody who has ever actually SEEN a Star Trek movie knows who Khan is. It’s like having seen any X-Men movie; you know who Magneto is. Even if you only have a vague idea of the characters, you know who he is.
timetowaste85 wrote: Anybody who has ever actually SEEN a Star Trek movie knows who Khan is. It’s like having seen any X-Men movie; you know who Magneto is. Even if you only have a vague idea of the characters, you know who he is.
I'd almost dare to say Khan is the most well know Star Trek character from the TOS era after Spock. Lots of people have seen the Kirk screaming his name meme, and that meme is called KHAAN! not Kirk.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How many viewers under the age of 40 who paid to see the second JJ Trek movie do you believe were not Star Trek fans?
Most of them, on a guess.
To be clear, in this context, 'Star Trek fan' would be referring to people who were actually familiar with the franchise prior to the first JJ movie.
Given the long dry spell, I would very strongly suspect that there were far fewer pre-JJ fans of the franchise in Into Darkness seats than there were people who started with JJ Trek and came back for more because they enjoyed that one.
I could be wrong. If there are demographic breakdowns out there somewhere, I'd be vaguely curious to see them... Just not enough to go looking for them.
I'd almost dare to say Khan is the most well know Star Trek character from the TOS era after Spock. Lots of people have seen the Kirk screaming his name meme, and that meme is called KHAAN! not Kirk.
Given that, from my experience the average cinema goer struggles to tell the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek, that's not really saying much.
Having seen the name in a meme and knowing the character's backstory aren't the same thing.
...you think the average moviegoer is that ignorant? There’s a huge difference in box office numbers for Star Trek movies and Star Wars movies. The average moviegoer (who sees science fiction movies) definitely knows the difference.
Keep in mind that the movie going population is a small fraction of the actual population. Considering the cost of movie tickets, movie goers tend to require some kind of motivation to see a movie, sadly often in the form of recognizing an established IP.
And Star Trek is part of the popular consciousness. Especially in the internet age, I think you’d have a hard time finding a majority of people willing to pay to see a science fiction movie who don’t know anything about Star Trek.
Both are well known names and part of the public consciousness not just from the shows/films but from the mainstream references and comedy thats been built around them for decades.
They are referenced in many of the big shows from the Simpsons to Southpark, Friends to Big Bang theory.
However details and character names except for say "Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Luke, Leia, Darth Vader" are much less likely to be know or indeed much cared about.
Jack Reacher, while Tom Cruise is a very good actor, having someone so short play as someone, who in the books is about 2 inches taller than anyone and everyone he comes across (regardless of their given height) is quite amusing.
