Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

epronovost wrote:

 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.

Blanket but heartfelt one.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Blanket but heartfelt one.

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.

Voss wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 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...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Blanket but heartfelt one.

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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_RAafbgYGc

Watch the whole thing, because Trapdoor is ace any day of the week!

and remember Berk loves a bit of bonking, naughty Mr Rushton sliding such filth into a kids show

Such a glorous show

Might need to move that over into the other thread; I can’t think of anyone dissing Trapdoor!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Blanket but heartfelt one.

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

Same complaint, same cloth.

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

 Vulcan wrote:

 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'.



@LordofHats -- The animated series Luthor was based on the post-Crisis Luthor. But yeah, they're the same iteration.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same complaint, same cloth.

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.

Don't forget mad scientist Luthor was the one that stole all the Hostess Fruit Pies.

Musselman wrote:


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:
Captain Marvel would have been better with an actress with more energy...or a less dour disposition.

I dunno, I thought the relatively dour disposition fit the story... she'd been through some gak.

Who was the actress who played Rita Repulsa in the new Power Rangers? She probably could have pulled it off.

Elizabeth Banks.

 Ahtman wrote:
Don't forget mad scientist Luthor was the one that stole all the Hostess Fruit Pies.

He’s a bad one.

 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.

Don't kink shame me.

 Ouze wrote:

I like him just fine in other stuff, but that was probably the worst casting decision in any movie I've ever seen..

You haven't seen John Wayne as Ghengis Khan, then...

Too before my time, I think - but I've certainly heard about that!

Here's a copyright free expose of some of the dialogue from the conqueror. If you watch the movie after this you deserve the agony you will suffer.

https://youtu.be/sbfPuyHDopQ

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.

I don't think that Orblando Gloom has ever contributed anything noteworthy to any of his roles; An eminently replacable actor.

 insaniak wrote:

 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"....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

 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?

I want to see this movie dammit!

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.