Captain America is Thor?!? Superhero film casting choices

Spon Farmer

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

My opinion is that anytime I have seen him in Home and Away he sucked. However that is Australia's Fair City so it may have been due to bad writing but I don't think he is going to be a success in the role.

If you look at all the comic characters that have been successfully transfered onto the screen they have almost all maintained an exact likeness to the comic form (Jackman, Downey JR, Pearlman, Snipes)

I see.
as you already pointed out yourself, a role in an Oz soap is hardly the thing to judge an actor on. actors gotta eat. bare in mind that Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe and Melissa George all started out in those soaps too.

as to exact likeness of comic book characters - Jackman is over 6 foot tall, whereas Wolverine is only 5 ft 3

galactus

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;60576802'] (snip)
If they can do it with Thor, great, cause I love the idea of this character, and more so the old norse tales....but I just think it'll come out another Daredevil.

How true - I just didn't want to put it into words like that (SOB!)

I have no doubt that they'll make a complete mess starting with a crummy CGI-generated Asgard. Odin, Thor and Loki are bound to be appaling. And I hate to think what they'll do with The Warriors Three. I'll stick to the comic here, thanks Marvel.

Fysh

Given that this is the first casting information we've seen and that there's been no commentary about any other aspect of the film, it's a bit early to be saying this film will be terrible. I'm not saying you should like it or commit to paying to see it, but at this stage we don't know much of anything. How about we stick to discussing what few facts we actually have about the film, rather than speculating about things that will only become apparent when the film is in the run-up to being released?

(Yeah, I know, boo me for trying to interfere with comic fandom complaining about stuff on the internet :P)

][cEMAN**

But I want to speculate. It's all forms of discussion. As long as there's a reason behind it, and not just "THIS WYLL SUX CUZ I R HATT MARVL!"

I'll go see it either way.

Regarding the wolverine likeness comment, i'm gonna have to go with the film makers on this one. Firstly, on screen it can be hard to guage height (look at Tom Cruise in his films, he doesn't look short at all). Secondly, if you could guage height and they put in a guy who was 5'3", I don't think he'd have as much appeal to a non fanbased audience as the 6' Jackman does.

Thing about films to a certain crowd is "Men wanna be him, woman wanna be with him". And I definately wouldn't want to see a wolverine film where he was made shorter like a hobbit.

Fysh

I was referring more to the likes of "I have no doubt that they'll make a complete mess starting with a crummy CGI-generated Asgard" than anything else with my comment about pointless speculation - wondering what road they'll take with the story can generate interesting discussion, deciding that it'll be awful based on nothing in particular can generate little other than more moaning or an epic rolleyes.

galactus

Fysh wrote: »

I was referring more to the likes of "I have no doubt that they'll make a complete mess starting with a crummy CGI-generated Asgard" than anything else with my comment about pointless speculation - wondering what road they'll take with the story can generate interesting discussion, deciding that it'll be awful based on nothing in particular can generate little other than more moaning or an epic rolleyes.

Pointless speculation....or Prophecy?

For me its about setting relalistic expextations. I really expect this to be rubbish but it its average I'll be delighted.

I've heard than Branagh has read up on his Thor so I'm a bit happier. That said, weren't there a lot of Daredevil fans involved in the making of Daredevil!

Fysh

galactus wrote: »

That said, weren't there a lot of Daredevil fans involved in the making of Daredevil!

I'll be honest, I know very little about that film - I've never read anything much involving Daredevil and that, combined with Ben Affleck, was enough to put me off the film.

I get very wary when any project involves people talking about how they "want to be faithful to the original material" (whether it's a film adaptation of a book or comic, or a comic following on from a hit miniseries, or whatever) because too often that line seems to mean "we had a quick look and we think we've understood what you liked about this the first time round, but we haven't actually spent any time working out how to follow on from that or properly transfer it from one medium to another". Take Watchmen for example - in many ways it was slavishly faithful to the source material, but it did so in an unconsidered manner, which led to little internal contradictions and an ultimately weak film.

subedei

galactus wrote: »

I've heard than Branagh has read up on his Thor so I'm a bit happier. That said, weren't there a lot of Daredevil fans involved in the making of Daredevil!

Aye Kevin Smith (Mallrats, chasing Amy, Dogma) directed it and he writes comics sometimes, like batman Cacophony of late. He is a big comic geek.

Fysh wrote: »

Take Watchmen for example - in many ways it was slavishly faithful to the source material, but it did so in an unconsidered manner, which led to little internal contradictions and an ultimately weak film.

Actually thought the movie was great, felt like it understood the material well to me, transfered it superbly to the screen. To be honest I think people complain about it if it is too faithful or too little faith or anywhere between. Suppose it comes when you have something that creates a strong personal experience like a comic or a book, people or disappointed when their own experience isnt what is transfered. Though I was expecting something terrible when I watched the watchmen so maybe It was the pleasantly surprised factor.

Spon Farmer

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;60596293']But I want to speculate. It's all forms of discussion. As long as there's a reason behind it, and not just "THIS WYLL SUX CUZ I R HATT MARVL!"

I'll go see it either way.

Regarding the wolverine likeness comment, i'm gonna have to go with the film makers on this one. Firstly, on screen it can be hard to guage height (look at Tom Cruise in his films, he doesn't look short at all). Secondly, if you could guage height and they put in a guy who was 5'3", I don't think he'd have as much appeal to a non fanbased audience as the 6' Jackman does.

Thing about films to a certain crowd is "Men wanna be him, woman wanna be with him". And I definately wouldn't want to see a wolverine film where he was made shorter like a hobbit.

what??

Spon Farmer

Fysh wrote: »

Given that this is the first casting information we've seen and that there's been no commentary about any other aspect of the film, it's a bit early to be saying this film will be terrible. I'm not saying you should like it or commit to paying to see it, but at this stage we don't know much of anything. How about we stick to discussing what few facts we actually have about the film, rather than speculating about things that will only become apparent when the film is in the run-up to being released?

(Yeah, I know, boo me for trying to interfere with comic fandom complaining about stuff on the internet :P)

Fysh, I started this thread to say Hemsworth "looked" ideal for Captain America, and Skarsgard for Thor.
I didn't anticipate nor want criticism of a movie that does not even exsist yet.
perhaps it's best to lock the thread, as this is going nowhere and starting to attract flies.

Fysh

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Fysh, I started this thread to say Hemsworth "looked" ideal for Captain America, and Skarsgard for Thor.
I didn't anticipate nor want criticism of a movie that does not even exsist yet.
perhaps it's best to lock the thread, as this is going nowhere and starting to attract flies.

I'm actually intrigued as to how the discussion of the films has developed, although I do want to keep it away from pointless criticism.

In terms of the casting decisions, it seems a bit off alright - I agree with your suggestion, although Hemsworth's suitability to the Captain America role depends on how closely they stick to the idea of Steve Rogers being a skinny rake before going into the supersoldier project. There are a few photos of Skarsgard with long hair where he looks right for the role, at least based on Thor as featured in Ultimates & Ultimates 2.

Let's widen the focus a bit - what are the general opinions on castings in all the Marvel/DC superhero adaptations so far, and what ones have been particularly good or bad?

Personally, I thought Thomas Jane was a bad choice for the Punisher, although part of my dislike for that film was based on having seen the old Punisher movie with Dolph Lundgren which was at least an 18 and didn't have the ill-fitting comedy moments.

Tobey Maguire I thought was an awful Spider-man - Topher Grace would have been a much better fit, IMO.

But even that was better than Val Kilmer's awful, awful turn as Batman in Batman Forever. And let's not forget Tommy Lee Jones's contribution to the horrific nature of that film - it's just a mercy that Jim Carrey actually suited his role to some extent...

galactus

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Fysh, I started this thread to say Hemsworth "looked" ideal for Captain America, and Skarsgard for Thor.
I didn't anticipate nor want criticism of a movie that does not even exsist yet.
perhaps it's best to lock the thread, as this is going nowhere and starting to attract flies.

Yeah, hands up to that sorry but am a long -time Thor fan and has been pointed out this is a tough one a tough one to do to right. I still say X-Men 2 was sets the standard for superhero movies. Oops, changing topic again... :pac: