|
|
Post by impulse on Oct 17, 2020 17:25:17 GMT -5
The point is that even though he is strong from his powers, they still go to the effort of making him look buff because that is what people expect to see. I don't need these characters to look like bodybuilders (which I agree is silly) but looking strong seems to fit. I think it looks weird when they don't, anyway,
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 17, 2020 19:01:17 GMT -5
Egads. Why are we even discussing Gadot in having to muscle up? She is a dancer and trained in Jui Jitsu and Kickboxing in preparing for Wonder Woman and she kicked all kinds of ass while looking gorgeous. I think that fulfills the WW requirements in perfect visualization from comic book to screen. Much more believable physically than Linda Carter or even Lucy Lawless with her VERY fake wirework performance in Xena. Nobody questions Keanu Reeves and all of his indestructibility and over the top kill moves in John Wick. Nobody complained that George Reeves or Christopher Reeve weren't muscled up enough for Superman. Keaton and EVERY Batman since are in sculpted suits to provide manly muscles. I would worry more about actors getting the essence of their particular hero or villain and less over if they have "enough" muscularity. I would say the difference is that Wonder Woman, as a superhero in a revealing costume, is at another level of over-the-top-ness compared to characters like John Wick (or, say, James Bond), as fantastical as they are. Gadot, with her military background, would quite probably be a good choice for relatively more realistic roles of that kind.
David Niven was a commando in WWII, IIRC - but would you pick him to star in a gladiator movie where he spends much of his time in a loincloth or whatever? No, but you might cast Errol Flynn, who weaseled his way out of military service in the war - but would look the part more than Niven would.
Reeves looks pretty stocky and strong to me, and Christopher Reeve famously did undergo a training routine to put n muscle after being cast as Superman
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2020 21:09:49 GMT -5
Egads. Why are we even discussing Gadot in having to muscle up? She is a dancer and trained in Jui Jitsu and Kickboxing in preparing for Wonder Woman and she kicked all kinds of ass while looking gorgeous. I think that fulfills the WW requirements in perfect visualization from comic book to screen. Much more believable physically than Linda Carter or even Lucy Lawless with her VERY fake wirework performance in Xena. Nobody questions Keanu Reeves and all of his indestructibility and over the top kill moves in John Wick. Nobody complained that George Reeves or Christopher Reeve weren't muscled up enough for Superman. Keaton and EVERY Batman since are in sculpted suits to provide manly muscles. I would worry more about actors getting the essence of their particular hero or villain and less over if they have "enough" muscularity. I would say the difference is that Wonder Woman, as a superhero in a revealing costume, is at another level of over-the-top-ness compared to characters like John Wick (or, say, James Bond), as fantastical as they are. Gadot, with her military background, would quite probably be a good choice for relatively more realistic roles of that kind.
David Niven was a commando in WWII, IIRC - but would you pick him to star in a gladiator movie where he spends much of his time in a loincloth or whatever? No, but you might cast Errol Flynn, who weaseled his way out of military service in the war - but would look the part more than Niven would.
Reeves looks pretty stocky and strong to me, and Christopher Reeve famously did undergo a training routine to put n muscle after being cast as Superman
Flynn didn't "weasel" his way out of the war...he had TB, chronic malaria, and a heart murmur and was found medically unfit. The studio hushed it up to protect his image, but he was still labeled a "draft dodger." He was no saint; but, that's a bit much. Niven had also played swashbuckling figures, such as in the Prisoner of Zenda, as Fritz, the best friend of Rassendyll (Ronald Coleman). The person who trained Christopher Reeve, to put muscle on his frame? Dave "Darth Vader" Prowse! |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 17, 2020 23:11:41 GMT -5
Fair enough, I should have looked up my facts before slandering Errol Flynn but the point remains. Or you could contrast, say Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne - Stewart had war experience, Wayne didn't, but Wayne might be better suited to certain parts calling for an actor who was physically impressive in a certain way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2020 23:37:02 GMT -5
Gal Gadot looked exactly like the WW of the comics.
Which was a good thing.
Also, Niven was a commando in World War Two, like the one he played one in Guns of Navarone. He played other soldiers, too in Dawn Patrol, Charge of the Light Brigade, and Spitfire.
Audie Murphy was only about 5'5", and yet he played cowboys and cavalrymen galore in dozens of Westerns. And somehow the most decorated American soldier in World War Two pulled it off quite nicely.
No, neither he nor Niven could have played a gladiator, but Flynn or Wayne would have been just as unbelievable. (Ever see Wayne as a centurion in The Greatest Story Ever Told? Or as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror? Yikes.)
Flynn played in a raft of Westerns, too, but as much as I like him, that pencil moustache and Down Under/ Tasmanian accent do stand front and center.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 18, 2020 11:05:37 GMT -5
Fair enough, I should have looked up my facts before slandering Errol Flynn but the point remains. Or you could contrast, say Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne - Stewart had war experience, Wayne didn't, but Wayne might be better suited to certain parts calling for an actor who was physically impressive in a certain way. I'm not arguing the appearances, though I think you do undersell how much an actor can bring to a role through their acting talent. Take John Wayne as a physical presence. Sure, you could put armor on him, give him a gladius and a Latin name; yet, the moment he opens his mouth and speaks, the illusion is shattered and he is a guy in a costume. Humphrey Bogart came from a well-to-do New England family; but, put him in a trench coat and a fedora and he was the perfect world-weary detective. The trenchcoat is costuming, the attitude was what sold the role. Audie Murphey, despite his size, made you believe he could handle anybody, on the range or the battlefield, because he could, for real. He exuded a quiet confidence that came from experience that gave the role the believability. Martin Sheen is supposed to be a dangerous special forces operator in Apocalypse Now. At the start of the film, he's a boozed up, mental and physical wreck and rather on the small size. However, once you see him in the briefing and as he goes along on the mission, you buy into it, because of his performance. Physicality is one component of an acting role. There is the internal and the storytelling to be conveyed through performance. If you can get both, for this type of role, that is perfect. However, good performance can make you forget the physical and you can mask those elements via lighting and camera angle, as well as creative costuming. You can't compensate for a bad performance by looking physically impressive, unless you just want to go straight into farce. Dolph Lundgren looked the part for the Punisher, but sucked in the role, though a generic script and cheap production aided that. I don't have a dog in the hunt. I was pretty dismissive of Godot, when first announced in the role, based on her lack of credits and photos of her. I thought she did a decent job in the finished film, though I do think the film is overpraised, just because it is better than the Snyder crap. I think it has an extremely weak third act and I found their idea of World War 1 combat to be ridiculous, even for a superhero film; but, that's a personal pet peeve. That said, I think she handled the part well, within the limitations of the script. I'm so-so on the costuming. I would have preferred something a little closer to what Darwyn Cooke did in New Frontier, though they were along those lines; just didn't like the muted look. By the same token, I thought Lynda Carter was terrific in the tv series and made the thing work, even when the scripts were mediocre. She had the presence and charisma that you would expect, she played it straight when it was silly, and she had an honesty to her performance that worked, just as it did for Adam West and George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. I love the first season, in WW2, with the light tone. It balances nicely on being an adventure show for kids and entertainment for adults. I thought it lost some of that when it changed networks and moved into the modern period. Also, the scripts felt more like your average detective show, rather than a superhero show. The key to an action-adventure film is mixing the right actor's performance with the right stuntpeople doing the other stuff. The tv Wonder Woman had Jeannie Epper and Kitty O'Neil. Epper is a legend in the stunt industry, coming from a family of stunt performers. She did a lot of the falls and and fight pieces, while O'Neil did a lot of vehicle stuff and also doubled Lindsay Wagner, in The Bionic Woman. The Bond films work because of the stunt people who have doubled the actors (especially in the Roger Moore era). Look at it like pro wrestling; the babyface is only as good as the heel makes him look, and the stars still needed the "jobbers" (the guys who always lost on tv matches) to "sell" for their signature moves, so fans would buy tickets to see them live. Robert Conrad, despite only being 5'8" (listed, though 5'7" is a bit more likely), starred in a popular western adventure series, a WW2 action series and a spy series and beat the crap out of people a foot taller, every week and people believed he was a tough guy. It was his attitude. He had boxed and was a physical person, and did much of his own stuntwork, yet Ross Martin was bigger than him. No one questioned him as the hero, though. Like I say, performance and attitude can mask the physical far more than the reverse. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 18, 2020 17:34:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I was speaking strictly to the physical appearance. Like a lot of the old Hollywood stars, John Wayne couldn't play anything but John Wayne, which became ludicrous when he attempted anything outside a pretty narrow range of American character-types. Errol Flynn too, in a different way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 18, 2020 23:51:25 GMT -5
Yeah, I was speaking strictly to the physical appearance. Like a lot of the old Hollywood stars, John Wayne couldn't play anything but John Wayne, which became ludicrous when he attempted anything outside a pretty narrow range of American character-types. Errol Flynn too, in a different way. I'm going to stick up for Wayne, who when he wasn't completely playing "John Wayne" was far better than Flynn was when he wasn't playing "Errol Flynn." Take a look at his performances in "Trouble Along the Way," and "The Quiet Man," for instance. And even in Westerns and war movies, he wasn't playing the cartoonish version of himself every time, as he shows in "Liberty Valance," "The Searchers," "Angel and the Badman," "Stagecoach," "They Were Expendable," and each of the so-called cavalry trilogy. Each of the characters he played in those was realistic, conflicted, and complicated. Flynn, meanwhile, really didn't handle light comedy well, even though you'd have thought he could have pulled off a little Cary Grant or William Powell in a pinch -- see "Footsteps in the Dark" for proof -- and much as I love to watch Flynn, never really added much in the way of nuance or shading to his adventure roles, as Wayne did with his Westerns. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Oct 18, 2020 23:59:41 GMT -5
Respectfully, people can and do talk about the absurdity of John Wick. The first one they at least attempted to keep up a flimsy facade of plausibility without totally breaking suspension of disbelief. I enjoyed the second and third, but that was despite them going all-in on live action cartoon, not because of it.
I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy Wonder Woman or Gadot’s performance. She did well. I just think she could have looked the part more with a different regimen and found it slightly distracting she seemed leaner than I expected.
As for looking like the comics character, ah, but which rendition? There have been many. I suppose most of my references are from some of the more modern takes. She is portrayed as more muscular than some of the classic ones a lot of you guys may be more familiar with.
As for Superman, I thought both Reeves looks the part perfectly fine. Much more realistic than Arnold would have looked. This is all subjective anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 19, 2020 7:33:03 GMT -5
John Wayne at least impressed my parents in his role in Quiet Man. I got named after his character.  |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Oct 19, 2020 7:44:30 GMT -5
It's about the visual impression, which is also subjective: the best boxer in the world might not be the one who'd look best in a fictional movie or drama about a boxer. I mentioned Serena Williams earlier: there are lots of high-ranking wmen tennis players more or less on a par with her in terms of physical fitness, but I can't thnk of many that would look as physically impressive - i.e convey an impression of physical strength - onscreen. I have no trouble understanding that most viewers thought Gadot looked right for the part; I just happen to be one of those who don't react that way to her onscreen appearence: my subjective feeling. Actresses or female actors are perhaps at something of a disadvantage in this regard because in many cases they can get in great physical condition without it being visually obvious on screen the way it can happen with men, on average, if they train a certain way. And no, I would not like to see body-builders, that's not the kind of look I'm thinking of at all.
My daughter once opined - and I agree with her - that 90% of all Hollywood films would be better if they gender reversed the main roles and then cast Kathy Bates and Steve Buscemi in the parts.
Steve Buscemi as Wonder Woman. I'd pay money to see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 19, 2020 11:19:50 GMT -5
It's about the visual impression, which is also subjective: the best boxer in the world might not be the one who'd look best in a fictional movie or drama about a boxer. I mentioned Serena Williams earlier: there are lots of high-ranking wmen tennis players more or less on a par with her in terms of physical fitness, but I can't thnk of many that would look as physically impressive - i.e convey an impression of physical strength - onscreen. I have no trouble understanding that most viewers thought Gadot looked right for the part; I just happen to be one of those who don't react that way to her onscreen appearence: my subjective feeling. Actresses or female actors are perhaps at something of a disadvantage in this regard because in many cases they can get in great physical condition without it being visually obvious on screen the way it can happen with men, on average, if they train a certain way. And no, I would not like to see body-builders, that's not the kind of look I'm thinking of at all.
My daughter once opined - and I agree with her - that 90% of all Hollywood films would be better if they gender reversed the main roles and then cast Kathy Bates and Steve Buscemi in the parts.
Steve Buscemi as Wonder Woman. I'd pay money to see that.
I can see it... |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Oct 19, 2020 11:31:01 GMT -5
It's about the visual impression, which is also subjective: the best boxer in the world might not be the one who'd look best in a fictional movie or drama about a boxer. I mentioned Serena Williams earlier: there are lots of high-ranking wmen tennis players more or less on a par with her in terms of physical fitness, but I can't thnk of many that would look as physically impressive - i.e convey an impression of physical strength - onscreen. I have no trouble understanding that most viewers thought Gadot looked right for the part; I just happen to be one of those who don't react that way to her onscreen appearence: my subjective feeling. Actresses or female actors are perhaps at something of a disadvantage in this regard because in many cases they can get in great physical condition without it being visually obvious on screen the way it can happen with men, on average, if they train a certain way. And no, I would not like to see body-builders, that's not the kind of look I'm thinking of at all. My daughter once opined - and I agree with her - that 90% of all Hollywood films would be better if they gender reversed the main roles and then cast Kathy Bates and Steve Buscemi in the parts. Steve Buscemi as Wonder Woman. I'd pay money to see that.
Steve Buscemi just absolutely looks the part of a late 30's early 40's actor from the golden age of Hollywood. He doesn't exactly have "pretty boy" looks, but he more than makes up for it in charisma. Kind of like Peter Loree in a way |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Oct 19, 2020 14:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 19, 2020 20:58:27 GMT -5
John Wayne at least impressed my parents in his role in Quiet Man. I got named after his character. Trooper? |
|
