• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023)
9 9

Started by paperheart,

3,126 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, media_junkie said:

I don't agree with Silvermane on alot of stuff, and I don't agree with him on the fact that Feige is a genius, but I will agree with him that the majority of the casting for the Superheroes we see in the MCU films have been great choices.  Could there have been better choices? I am sure there could have been, but after watching the actors that was chosen for the parts it is extremely hard to see someone else in those "shoes" now.

For the majority of the casting, we are in agreement. I have felt very comfortable with that part of Marvel Studios.

But where I've taken issue is more with the fanatically blind fans of this franchise that attack other studios if they don't follow the same model. Make it a point to ridicule and alter details about production history, box office results, source honoring or even speaking for all fandom what is or is not satisfactory content.

These are the same people that will go to the theater multiple times to line the pockets of Disney to ensure it's excessively successful while mocking other fans like the Snyder Cut supporters who as part of their efforts have raised now $750K in support of suicide prevention.

These folks so personalize the success of the MCU, no wonder why heated debates occur. You would think they crafted the scripts, selected the cast, determined the cinematography and edited the final cut. It's a mentally unhealthy mindset. But they can hide it behind 'But the MCU has made billions' to justify all their behavior is just backing a winner. Examples are those on here that don't even watch competitor productions, yet they will rejoice in any and all negative news from these releases.

That's what we have come to accept as normal comic book film fan behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, media_junkie said:

I don't agree with Silvermane on alot of stuff, and I don't agree with him on the fact that Feige is a genius, but I will agree with him that the majority of the casting for the Superheroes we see in the MCU films have been great choices.  Could there have been better choices? I am sure there could have been, but after watching the actors that was chosen for the parts it is extremely hard to see someone else in those "shoes" now.

 

I've loved most of their choices.

Would have preferred Emily Blunt as Black Widow, tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted (edited)

I didn't actually refer to Kevin Feige as being the sole genius over at Marvel Studios responsible for everything in the MCU. To clarify, as I see it, the "genius" effort over at Marvel Studios has been a collective of talented filmmakers, writers, and producers steered by Kevin Feige's leadership to create a movie franchise filled with different voices that has changed the world.

The "collective" aspect is important, and while "collective genius" isn't technically a thing, it is more what I meant.

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
media_junkie

media_junkie

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Angel of Death said:

I think most of us agree that they ended up being great choices for their roles.

Do you think that they were 'out-of-the-box' choices, though?

No, I dont feel as if they were out of the box choices.  Perhaps, and this is a big perhaps, maybe RDJ was the biggest casting "risk" due to his history.  However I'm not sure on the timing and he well could have been back on his way to success/importance at the time of his casting. 

Everyone else while they have been good to great, they have been safe choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, media_junkie said:

No, I dont feel as if they were out of the box choices.  Perhaps, and this is a big perhaps, maybe RDJ was the biggest casting "risk" due to his history.  However I'm not sure on the timing and he well could have been back on his way to success/importance at the time of his casting. 

Everyone else while they have been good to great, they have been safe choices.

I don't think I used the term "out of the box" in reference to Marvel's casting. I said "casting against type," which isn't as strong a term. What I mean is rather than selecting typical square jaw pretty faces that fans love to cast or other studios usually go with, Marvel cast more personality types like Robert Downey Jr, Paul Rudd, Anthony Mackie, or Simu Liu. A poll of folks on China's streets said they didn't think Simu Liu was "attractive" enough to be a super-hero, but as I said, Marvel looks past that sort of stuff because the actor's personality is so important to these MCU characters living and breathing in a fictional world for a decade or so. Even Chadwick Boseman didn't initially strike me as the "prince of Africa" type. Sure, sometimes you have to go with handsome chiseled type like Chris Evans or Hemsworth, but it helps to have that when you're introducing to the world somebody who's Mr America or a Norse god. I remember somebody once telling me they didn't think Brie Larson was that "hot." She's pretty for sure, but yeah, not really the bikini model type. It's obvious for Carol Danvers, Marvel wanted something besides that.

It really seems that in a lot of the actors chosen for the MCU, Chris Hemsworth aside, there seemed to be a desire to cast actors who looked more "normal" and less "unattainably beautiful" and perhaps wanted folks who rely more on their personality or background. There might even be a slight uneasiness in casting these slightly off-center actors which gives the films a little more cinematic energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

It really seems that in a lot of the actors chosen for the MCU, Chris Hemsworth aside, there seemed to be a desire to cast actors who looked more "normal" and less "unattainably beautiful" and perhaps wanted folks who rely more on their personality or background. There might even be a slight uneasiness in casting these slightly off-center actors which gives the films a little more cinematic energy.

I....

emotion01.gif.93571d3335376e1bad011e5900f56a4f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

"There might even be a slight uneasiness in casting these slightly off-center actors which gives the films a little more cinematic energy."

 

emotion01.gif.93571d3335376e1bad011e5900f56a4f.gif

Yeah, I admit it's kind of a weird concept for normal folks to wrap their heads around. But it's something a film director or casting director might get...

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted

As I've noted before, RDJ's casting was risky -- but it was anything but "off-center."

I mean, he looks (and acts) almost exactly like Tony Stark. Would Tom Cruise have been good? Yes. Would he have been as great as RDJ? No way.

I think the far more "off-center" choices were Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and even Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts. They could have gone with half a dozen other choices over Gwyneth Paltrow for that role - and while it's fairly minor, it's also spanned the decade (and been integral to Tony's story).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Great, you were confused by my last sentence there, but what did you think of the rest of my previous sentences in said post or is it all just generally confusing for you?

You are just so fanatical over convincing everyone of a thing, I truly wait for the commercial announcement...

emotion01.gif.0130d06e61c7ccf667860cd504272c0d.gif

"...with my free tickets that happened to slip under my door!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@therealsilvermane

@therealsilvermane

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

As I've noted before, RDJ's casting was risky -- but it was anything but "off-center."

I mean, he looks (and acts) almost exactly like Tony Stark. Would Tom Cruise have been good? Yes. Would he have been as great as RDJ? No way.

I think the far more "off-center" choices were Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and even Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts. They could have gone with half a dozen other choices over Gwyneth Paltrow for that role - and while it's fairly minor, it's also spanned the decade (and been integral to Tony's story).

As far as the comics go, I say the Stark we first met in Iron Man was a far stretch from that guy. The Tony Stark in the comics wasn't a funny slacker industrialist who just wants to party. In fact, the Tony Stark in the comics was more of an Errol Flynn-Howard Hughes type in the 60's then transitioned to more of a Tom Selleck type in the 80's and 90's and wasn't really written as a funny guy. He was kind of boring actually.

But forgetting about the comics and considering the movie archetype dashing playboy billionaire and also the archetype superhero, Robert Downey Jr was not that. Robert Downey Jr made a career of playing twerps and outsiders, from Weird Science and Back to School to even the more recent Yellow Layer Cake or whatever it's called. And RDJ also wasn't on anyone's sexiest man alive lists, either.

Of course, when fans heard of the RDJ casting, many first thought, of course, Downey being a drug addict he can relate to the Tony Stark Demon in a Bottle storyline which was hardly touched on in the movies, maybe like 1% in Iron Man 2 where Stark goes on a party binge because he's dying.

Drug problems aside, IMO, Robert Downey Jr was still cast against type because I don't think he fit a lot of people's image of an archetype super-hero.

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
20 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

As far as the comics go, I say the Stark we first met in Iron Man was a far stretch from that guy. The Tony Stark in the comics wasn't a funny slacker industrialist who just wants to party. In fact, the Tony Stark in the comics was more of an Errol Flynn-Howard Hughes type in the 60's then transitioned to more of a Tom Selleck type in the 80's and 90's and wasn't really written as a funny guy. He was kind of boring actually.

But forgetting about the comics and considering the movie archetype dashing playboy billionaire and also the archetype superhero, Robert Downey Jr was not that. Robert Downey Jr made a career of playing twerps and outsiders, from Weird Science and Back to School to even the more recent Yellow Layer Cake or whatever it's called. And RDJ also wasn't on anyone's sexiest man alive lists, either.

Of course, when fans heard of the RDJ casting, many first thought, of course, Downey being a drug addict he can relate to the Tony Stark Demon in a Bottle storyline which was hardly touched on in the movies, maybe like 1% in Iron Man 2 where Stark goes on a party binge because he's dying.

Drug problems aside, IMO, Robert Downey Jr was still cast against type because I don't think he fit a lot of people's image of an archetype super-hero.

Wow - you're so wrong here, it's hard to know where to begin.

On your first point - you're missing the key character trait of Tony Stark. Massive arrogance.

Which is exactly how RDJ played him in the first Iron Man film - and following ones. Not "funny slacker industrialist" - those traits (such that they were - I think that's a gross overstatement, esp. in the first film) are just natural outcomes of his arrogance and (literally) being the smartest - and wealthiest - guy in the room. They're not defining traits of the MCU Stark by any stretch. If any thing, they're ways he expresses his arrogance, just as Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne adopted a bored socialite playboy vibe.

And...RDJ made a "career of playing twerps and outsiders"?

Sure...but also of top-tier dramatic roles, including U.S. Marshals, Natural Born Killers, One Night Stand (a phenomenal movie), Chaplin (his first Oscar nom), and the then-recent films A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints and Zodiac. Zodiac may not have been a blockbuster, but it certainly reinforced his abilities as a top-tier actor.

Your last statement is wrong too - "I don' think he fit people's image of a super-hero?" Huh? He fit my image of Tony Stark from the 30 or so Iron Man comics I'd read back in the '80s.

Again - it wasn't off-beat casting at all - it made perfect sense. But it *was* risky because he was a) not a *recent* marquee box office draw and was b) a rehab / insurance / don't-finish-the-movie or maybe OD-Phillip-Seymour-Hoffman style risk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
9 9
Go to topic listing