|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Feb 4, 2015 5:43:21 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. You can find someone for the age of the role you're looking for that isn't eye candy. There are youthful people that can act too believe it or not. Yes there certainly are youthful people who have talent and ability. That is not the issue here. If your criteria for evaluating performers or people in general is their age or how they look, and dismiss people who don't fit your criteria on those issues, then acting ability (or ability in any field) isn't figuring into it. If you are evaluating on acting ability (or competence in other fields if we move beyond acting), then whether they look good and how old they are are non-issues and not relevant to the conversation. If your first question is Are they hot? or How old are they? or if those are what you evaluate performers on, then you give the impression their ability to act and deliver a quality performance does not matter to you. If they can act well and deliver a quality performance then age and hotness are irrelevant, and dismissing Amy Adams performance as Lois Lane because she should have been hotter or younger is a prime example of that. So yes, young people can act, I never said they couldn't, but the cult of youth and appearance doesn't ask can they act, they ask are they hot and how old are they...and if that is all that matters to them, then they shouldn't be surprised when they don't get quality out. Output comes from input, if you don't consider the quality of what you put into a project, you shouldn't be surprised you don't get quality out of it. I've seen the quote attributed to both Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw, but there is a certain truth to the idea that youth is wasted on the young, and if I only knew then what I know now. When I was in my twenties I would have told you the ideas in those quotes were full of sh*t, but I've come to realize I was full of sh*t when I was in my twenties too, and it got worse before it got better. Of course, ten years from now I will likely look back and realize I am still full of sh*t now. -M I get what you're saying, but like I said all of those factors don't have to be mutually exclusive. Looking for someone for a specific role you can have a certain criteria for a character that you want a performer to be able to execute. Whether it's if the person resembles someone from a source material, if they can act the part, if they can gel with everyone else, if the person is going to be a problem to deal with in general, etc. Using Amy Adams as an example, personally I think there were better choices out there. She's a fine actress, but for Lois Lane I thought there were a couple of other actresses that could bring the character off the page more so than she could. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 4, 2015 6:52:20 GMT -5
Even Hannibal Lecter has been successfully recast with the delicious Mads Mikkelsen assuming the role from Anthony Hopkins (a role I would have bet money belonged to Hopkins alone*). With a good story, a quality production and strong actors, audiences can be very forgiving of a new face in a familiar role. (*And yes, I remember that Hopkins followed the great Brian Cox as Lecter.) The Lecter thing has a few significant advantages over what Marvel is doing. 1) There was over a decade between Hopkins' last performance and Mikkelsen's first performance, giving Hopkins' interpretation time to fade in the public consciousness. 2) Hopkins was way too old to play the role anyway (especially for a prequel), recasting wasn't just an issue of "I'm done with the character" 3) It's television rather than film, which further separates the two incarnations 4) The two incarnations are dramatically different approaches. The Hopkins films were more realistic R-rated cop movies aimed at adults, particularly "Silence" (described by Gene Siskel as "a brutally depressing thriller") while the TV show is very highly stylized and romanticized (and an endless source of cutesy memery on Tumblr). So far there have been no creatures like Buffalo Bill and no scenes of kidnapped girls screaming for their mothers at the bottom of wells, and where the show does veer towards this subject matter it's not played for the same level of brutality. Two very different shows which have two different audiences, and neither version of Hannibal Lecter would work in the other. A generational gap aided by a long hiatus and the two productions really having nothing in common other than the subject matter. The best possible circumstances for recasting a role. I was thinking something along these lines as well in regard to how the mediums are different and the time elapsed is fairly significant. I used to watch soap operas (I got addicted to the serialized storytelling, much like comic books). There would be times when an actor would leave the show and they would recast the role immediately because it was an integral character (sometimes even in the middle of an episode), and there would be Voice-Over Guy with an announcement of "The role of Blah Blah is now being played by Yadda Yadda". We usually didn't have the benefit of spoilers four months in advance, so it was just accepted and everyone moved on. For a major movie series, which is what all of the Marvel movies are tied into, it would be quite jarring to have RDJ in the role of Tony Stark for Captain America 3, then have another actor pick the role up for Avengers 3. Sure, with the age of the Internet and the massive attention given to these movies, we'd all know to expect a different actor as Tony Stark, but it would be a different feel and chemistry than what RDJ has with CE, CH, and MR. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 9, 2015 9:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 9, 2015 15:11:52 GMT -5
It makes me think more of Never Ending Story than Marvel Comics, but it's not terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Apr 19, 2015 22:36:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 27, 2015 19:53:15 GMT -5
These guys just do not seem to get the FF. This movie, at least going by the trailer, is going to be full of forced humor, dark imagery and mindless fighting. In my mind I can see the perfect FF movie; Reed looks and acts like Kirby's version, Doom* looks and acts like Byrne's version, the Thing is actually charming and funny like Lee wrote him, and so on.
*My advice to anyone doing an FF adaptation, above all else, is that if you can't figure out a way to portray Dr. Doom properly (ex. Latveria, his actual origin, etc.) don't bother. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 22:01:50 GMT -5
These guys just do not seem to get the FF. This movie, at least going by the trailer, is going to be full of forced humor, dark imagery and mindless fighting. In my mind I can see the perfect FF movie; Reed looks and acts like Kirby's version, Doom* looks and acts like Byrne's version, the Thing is actually charming and funny like Lee wrote him, and so on. *My advice to anyone doing an FF adaptation, above all else, is that if you can't figure out a way to portray Dr. Doom properly (ex. Latveria, his actual origin, etc.) don't bother. Seriously. The set up seemed to take a lot of cues from Ultimate FF rather than classic Marvel FF, which is not surprising since Mark Millar is Fox's comic consultant and played a large role in the early Ultimate stuff. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on May 3, 2015 20:27:24 GMT -5
Let me see if I get this straight. Marvel's Entertainment Chief Ike Perlmutter doesn't want Marvel Comics promoting Fox's Fantastic Four film, so he cancels the comic. However, ABC Family (another cog in the Disney Empire) is playing the original Fox Fantastic Four film right now.  |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on May 4, 2015 3:10:30 GMT -5
Before the trailers had come out, this sounded like an absolute train wreck.
Now, I'm thinking this looks really good.
Yes it takes a lot of cues from the Ultimate version, but that's not necessarily bad. I was a big fan of the UU, even through the not-so-good times.
I like them breaking through to an alternate dimension rather than the traditional origin and the four of them being affected. Has a very sci-fi feel, which the FF should be, more sci-fi than superhero IMO.
Really looking forward to this now. Thinking Doom might be the ruler of that dimension, not sure. Possibly when Reed comes into this dimension it causes an explosion or something to that effect, hence the armor and Doom hating Richards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 11:19:46 GMT -5
I saw the trailer last Sunday (Saw Avenger 2) and I'm so sad to see this version plays out and forcing young readers that this isn't the true origin of the Fantastic Four and because of that - I will never, ever see this movie at all because it isn't true to the eyes of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 15:52:06 GMT -5
There are rumors Trank was having issues while filming the film and others had to step in to finish his job for him (which may have led to his firing from the Star Wars film) and that the whole thing had to be MaGuvyred together with reshoots and edits without Trank's involvement to get it done... BC speculationif true, Trank's rep mighht be taking a hit and it might be harder for him to get work-it's an awful lot of other people's money on the line in the blockbuster film game and they don't like people who screw it up... -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 4, 2015 16:31:37 GMT -5
I agree with Hondorobe: I had serious reservations after the first trailer, but now this looks like a more promising FF movie. It's not the real FF, but then neither were the Ultimates the real Avengers and I liked their comic just fine.
I'm just worried about Doom, like many others. In the trailer he looked like a guy wearing a cheap plastic Halloween Dr Doom mask. I expected something heavy-looking with sharp edges, like the Byrne version of the Kirby design.
The actor playing Reed surprised me. He's much better in that role (from what the trailer tells us) than I expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by clutterstuffmichael on May 5, 2015 6:37:33 GMT -5
I'll be honest. I was never a huge FF fan. To me Reed Richards was unendearing (an opinion now proved fairly correct with the whole Illuminati thing---especially with Planet Hulk). Sue seemed one-dimensional, Johnny was a real jerk. They basically get a pass because they were the "First Family" of Marvel.
Having seen all three of the previous FF movies, though, I am certain that this will be the best of them. Because it couldn't possibly be worse. I will be waiting for the Redbox release.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 6:52:19 GMT -5
I'll be honest. I was never a huge FF fan. To me Reed Richards was unendearing (an opinion now proved fairly correct with the whole Illuminati thing---especially with Planet Hulk). Sue seemed one-dimensional, Johnny was a real jerk. They basically get a pass because they were the "First Family" of Marvel. Having seen all three of the previous FF movies, though, I am certain that this will be the best of them. Because it couldn't possibly be worse. I will be waiting for the Redbox release. One should not tempt fate by saying such things..... -M |
|
|
|
Post by clutterstuffmichael on May 7, 2015 13:47:00 GMT -5
I'll be honest. I was never a huge FF fan. To me Reed Richards was unendearing (an opinion now proved fairly correct with the whole Illuminati thing---especially with Planet Hulk). Sue seemed one-dimensional, Johnny was a real jerk. They basically get a pass because they were the "First Family" of Marvel. Having seen all three of the previous FF movies, though, I am certain that this will be the best of them. Because it couldn't possibly be worse. I will be waiting for the Redbox release. One should not tempt fate by saying such things..... -M Well, even if the rest of the movie is a total disaster, the trailer alone has been better than the previous three FF movies. But, like I said, not a huge FF fan, so I'm not completely invested in the future of this film. |
|
