Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Home Run Casting Choices in Comic Book Movies


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Who do you consider the best casting choices ever made in a comic book movie?

 

I'd start it off with this guy...

 

J.K._Simmons_as_Jameson.gif

 

So good the makers of the reboot would rather pretend the character doesn't exist than try to follow his performance.

 

Others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heath Ledger, The Joker

Tom Hardy, Bane

Robert Downey Jr, Iron Man

Michael Keaton, Batman

Patrick Stewart, Professor Xavier

Tom Hiddleston, Loki

Terrence Stamp, General Zod

Hugh Jackman, Wolverine

Jackie Earle Haley, Rorschach

Anne Hathaway, Catwoman

Ron Pearlman, Hellboy

....to name a few.

The only one I'd disagree with you on is Keaton.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heath Ledger, The Joker

Tom Hardy, Bane

Robert Downey Jr, Iron Man

Michael Keaton, Batman

Patrick Stewart, Professor Xavier

Tom Hiddleston, Loki

Terrence Stamp, General Zod

Hugh Jackman, Wolverine

Jackie Earle Haley, Rorschach

Anne Hathaway, Catwoman

Ron Pearlman, Hellboy

....to name a few.

 

Not that I disagree with his inclusion, but how do you mention Terrence Stamp and then not mention Christopher Reeve?

 

I expected Reeve to be one of the first names mentioned and haven't seen him yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Jackson was a bad choice for Wolverine.  He's way too tall.  He's like 6'2" and Wolverine is supposed to be like 5'5" or something and look way more rugged.  That being said, I think he obviously has done it well though.   I guess for movies someone taller makes sense, but just sayin'.

 

From what I hear Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is pretty spot on so far in Guardians.  I actually think Scarlet was a great casting choice for Black Widow too.   Hemsworth as Thor is pretty good as well.

 

Speaking of Watchman, the casting of Rorshache was perfect.

 

Walking Dead did an excellent casting of Glenn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Jackson was a bad choice for Wolverine.  He's way too tall.  He's like 6'2" and Wolverine is supposed to be like 5'5" or something and look way more rugged.  That being said, I think he obviously has done it well though.   I guess for movies someone taller makes sense, but just sayin'.

 

From what I hear Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is pretty spot on so far in Guardians.  I actually think Scarlet was a great casting choice for Black Widow too.   Hemsworth as Thor is pretty good as well.

 

Speaking of Watchman, the casting of Rorshache was perfect.

 

Walking Dead did an excellent casting of Glenn.

 

I questioned the height thing with Jackman too, but he pretty much owns the role now.

 

Russell Crowe and Dougray Scott were both set to have the role before he got it.  Crowe as Wolverine just strikes me as a bad idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, while I found his Kal-El to be quite physically imposing, I never found his Superman to be what I had envisioned for the character in a live action film.

 

You're a fan of Keaton as Batman but not Reeve as Superman?

 

You and I are going to have words :unsure:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhh, Scarlett is as bland as Renner for the role. I feel as if they got Johansson for her looks/body and celebrity status. That's all. Nothing from her performances did I ever see a sure fire homerun with the casting selection.

Jackman IS The Wolverine. I could care less that he's 6'3". Hugh has got the acting chops and dedication.

 

 

That isn't really her fault it's more that they didn't give her time until Winter Soldier where she played the role really well.  She's an ex-KGB agent, she's only got so much personality period.  Renner doesn't get any time either to expand on his role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While his Bruce Wayne left a lot to be desired, his Batman was pretty much spot on.

 

Neither worked for me.

 

Christian Bale is the best I've seen so far, but I honestly have yet to see a 'Batman' I'm satisfied with.  The best pure acting job was probably Val Kilmer, but he didn't fit the persona well, and with Batman persona is everything.  Bale was a quality actor who fit the persona better than anyone so far.

 

Gerard Butler strikes me as a guy with the kind of persona to pull off batman, but I'm also intrigued by Joe Mangianello.  Batman is supposed to be a very physically imposing presence, and Mangianello is 6'5 with a football player build.  Would love to see him get a shot.

 

Affleck?  I don't even... :unsure:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...