Captain America is Thor?!? Superhero film casting choices

Spon Farmer

it seems Marvel are casting Chris Hemsworth as Thor.

Hemsworth is born to play Captain America.
Alexander Skarsgard should be Thor.

but definite casting is Tom Hiddleston. he will play Loki.

galactus

Am a looong-time Thor fan and they can only make a pig's ear of it with casting like this.

I am boycotting it. Even better would be if funding was withdrawn and the movie never made at all.

PS Shouldn't this post be in Movies!

ztoical

galactus wrote: »

Am a looong-time Thor fan and they can only make a pig's ear of it with casting like this.

I am boycotting it. Even better would be if funding was withdrawn and the movie never made at all.

I'm surprised people are only complaining now with the casting, I would have thought when Branagh was announced as director people would have started. Personally I'm looking forward to this, having someone like Kenneth Branagh directing should bring something very different to the table and save the film from being just another plastic, fx heavy, "comic book" movie.

Given that Marvel are producing the film themselves your hopes for funding to be withdrawn are unlikely to be fulfilled.

galactus wrote: »

PS Shouldn't this post be in Movies!

Why? this a film based on a comic book movie and this is a the comic forum so it makes sense to post it here esp at this early stage in production as reaction to things like the casting are more likely to stir more debate here as comic book readers will know the character and have more of an opinion of wither the casting is a good choice or not. Nothing stopping you starting a thread about it in the film forum.

subedei

Thor is a dangerous character to try in film, but it is possible Id say to make a great film of the character. Brannagh is a good choice imo, his shakespearen movies were great, and energetic. I can imagine him doing a good job.

shenanigans1982

I just can't see this movie working, its going to be hard to make people connect with the character and I get the feeling it's going to be a lot closer to the Ultimates version than the true version.

As for the casting he seems more likely to fit the role of one of Thor's alter ego's but at least it's a step in the right direction away from one of the rumours originally floating about.......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/TripleH-Sledgehammer.jpg

galactus

ztoical wrote: »

I'm surprised people are only complaining now with the casting, I would have thought when Branagh was announced as director people would have started.

Oh believe me I've been complaiing about it not here though!

ztoical wrote: »

Nothing stopping you starting a thread about it in the film forum.

Spon Farmer started it!

Verily, nothing good will come of this Thor movie. I say thee nay!!

Spon Farmer

they haven't even started and Cork is complaining:mad:

subedei

Spon Farmer wrote: »

they haven't even started and Cork is complaining:mad:

Hey dont generalise, I am hopeful about this movie and I am from Cork.

Spon Farmer

subedei wrote: »

Hey dont generalise, I am hopeful about this movie and I am from Cork.

I didn't mean you, dude. I'd never say that about you.:eek:

subedei

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I didn't mean you, dude. I'd never say that about you.:eek:

LOL fair enough, continue the flame war so, Ill start.... DOWN WITH THOSE CORK LANGERS! UP <insert choice of county here>!

ztoical

DOWN WITH THOSE CORK LANGERS! UP TIPP!

Fysh

ztoical wrote: »

DOWN WITH THOSE CORK LANGERS! UP TIPP!

*a-hem!*

I'd say "Up the langers" but some smartarse will only ask "up where?" and nothing good would come of it.

As for the movie, the casting is a bit weak but I'm intrigued as to what Marvel are going to push Branagh to do with this. I don't know much about Thor in the 616 setup, but I can't imagine it would be particularly easy to sell as a mainstream movie - but then, I'm not sure the Ultimate Thor character arc from Ultimates 1 & 2 would be an easy sell either.

galactus

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I didn't mean you, dude. I'd never say that about you.:eek:

It was me who started the complaining. Still, Cork, Asgard...very little difference both heavenly places

Spon Farmer

I haven't seen confirmation on Hemsworth yet.
he'd be better as Captain America. Alexander Skarsgard should be Thor and his Da should be his Da:cool:

][cEMAN**

Something about this just makes me think about Daredevil.

Brimmy

galactus wrote: »

Oh believe me I've been complaiing about it not here though!

May I ask why? Branagh is an accomplished director and his usual styles should complement Thor. I like the casting and if the rumour of Brian Blessed as Odin is true this movie will be the one I'm most looking forward too out of the lot.

Spon Farmer

Brimmy wrote: »

.....if the rumour of Brian Blessed as Odin is true ...........

Had heard that (insert Blessed trademark "what??" here:D)

Mr. Frost

This thread is pathetic, and sadly typical. Some people (I won't even call you geeks as that imply some level of intelligence) who probably sit in a crappy office for crap money thinking they no better than the people who are there for a reason. Give it a chance, at least wait and see. I bet the OP is the same type of person giving out about Daniel Craig as Bond. Shut up until it's released.

subedei

Mr. Frost wrote: »

This thread is pathetic, and sadly typical. Some people (I won't even call you geeks as that imply some level of intelligence) who probably sit in a crappy office for crap money thinking they no better than the people who are there for a reason. Give it a chance, at least wait and see. I bet the OP is the same type of person giving out about Daniel Craig as Bond. Shut up until it's released.

Find your comments rather idiotic to be honest, I mean I think there is nothing wrong with people talking about things before they come out, for and against, there always is for movies, and other entertainments, because the love and anticipation people have for them, to discuss things is intelligient to me, even if I disaggree with the other person. I wont even bother with the rest of what you said as I feel sorry for u if thats how u think. Lastly, if you dont like the thread you dont have to write in it or read it.

Spon Farmer

Mr. Frost wrote: »

This thread is pathetic, and sadly typical. Some people (I won't even call you geeks as that imply some level of intelligence) who probably sit in a crappy office for crap money thinking they no better than the people who are there for a reason. Give it a chance, at least wait and see. I bet the OP is the same type of person giving out about Daniel Craig as Bond. Shut up until it's released.

did you even bother to read my first post.
I did not criticise the casting of Hemsworth as Thor, I said he was "born to play Captain America" and Skarsgard likewise for Thor because of their looks and bodies. I never said Hemsworth wouldn't be good in the part.
As for Daniel Craig as Bond - I was a big supporter when he was announced as 007 asnd took great delight in the upset it caused to haters (ie bitter people like you Frost) and his Casino Royale is the best Bond film ever and Craig is the best Bond. so there. HA!!
as for what I do for a living - I help people. the money is alright. what do you do?
no I won't shut up.
I suspect you'll be to afraid to return and respond but as subedei already mentioned why are you even reading this you angry little person?:p

shenanigans1982

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;60514924']Something about this just makes me think about Daredevil.

A decent movie that will be sh*t all over because of the lead actor?

ven0m

I had high hopes with Ken Brannagh being aboard, but how the hell could they get this piece of casting so very very wrong ..... I mean, do these people not get that no matter which artist draws our beloved comic characters, there's key features of their appearance that rarely if ever go AWOL .... I mean, good god - OP was right about Alexander for Thor, had been thinking that myself;

I mean, Thor is meant to be norse & they cast the least norse-looking guy they can. I mean, Chris H has totoally got that 'All American' look.

Very poor casting choice - I mean, even Viggo Mortensen would have been a better choice than Chris H. It reeks of Ben Affleck as Daredevil, which was such a piss poor choice frankly.

Spon Farmer

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

A decent movie that will be sh*t all over because of the lead actor?

please state your reasons for your opinion of Hemsworth

Spon Farmer

ven0m wrote: »

I mean, Thor is meant to be norse & they cast the least norse-looking guy they can. I mean, Chris H has totoally got that 'All American' look.

this was my point, he isn't even a Yank and he looks more American than apple pie. when heard he was cast in TREK I thought he was surely headed for the lead in Captain America

but it is unfair to say he is a piss poor choice, perhaps Branagh reason for choosing him over Skarsgard is a good one.

shenanigans1982

Spon Farmer wrote: »

please state your reasons for your opinion of Hemsworth

eh...that has nothing to do with the guy from Home and Away.

Spon Farmer

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

eh...that has nothing to do with the guy from Home and Away.

you said a decent movie that will be **** because of the lead actor.

shenanigans1982

Spon Farmer wrote: »

you said a decent movie that will be **** because of the lead actor.

Read the post again.

Fysh

I want to see less bickering and more actual discussion. Speculate about whatever you want, but explain your reasons.

Spon Farmer

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Read the post again.

you said read it again, I did but not sure what you mean.
were you being sarcastic as in "oh, the guy from Home and Away".
your post isn't as clear as I think you think it is

shenanigans1982

Spon Farmer wrote: »

you said read it again, I did but not sure what you mean.
were you being sarcastic as in "oh, the guy from Home and Away".
your post isn't as clear as I think you think it is

I asked would it remind him of Daredevil because people will sh*t all over it because of who was picked to play the title character.

Daredevil IMO was a decent Marvel movie ( better than either FF offering) and deserved a sequel rather than a sh*t spin off, but because Ben Affleck was chosen to play DD people thought that was reason enough to proclaim the movie as terrible. I was asking Iceman does he reckon the Thor movie will get the same reception for similar reasons. Nothing to do with my opinion of the guy.

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) and while people may not be overly familiar with Thor a lot will have an idea of what he looks like. The guy cast does not match up to this is any way and straight off the director is faced with the challenge of convincing the people he could possibly be a God of Thunder. Personally I hope he has been cast as Donald Blake/ Jake Olsen or another alter ego with someone else filling in the Thor Role.

][cEMAN**

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

A decent movie that will be sh*t all over because of the lead actor?

Hehehe c'mon Daredevil wasn't bad just because of the lead actor....there were a few other people involved that made it a bit cringeworthy.

No, I meant the idea of it. The suspension of disbelief for the thor character.

OK Superman just has his iconic factor. Batman is at a stretch a plausable idea. X-men going on about the next stage of human evolution is an idea with a plan, coupled with the racism tag that it's had its whole time being what pushes it into the acceptance area in a film.

But then you have Spiderman, Daredevil, the new wolverine movie. They need more of a story than effects for them to work (Batman begins was a great example of a good way to take a hero story that's supposed to be kinda super).

Spiderman I liked, but after a while you just start to think "Too many effects, not enough story". Spiderman 3 was terrible for the cheese it injected into the character, and lets be fair - there's only so much you can do with a character. Especially one that fights a different villain every week.

Daredevil - The acting in this was dreadful. The dialogue was worse (from what I remember). The idea of it is as bad as superman putting on glasses so nobody would recognise him. It needed more than it gave.

Wolverine - It was all about action and no story. In that respect it actually worked in a way, but when it forced the story at the end before the end battle, it seemed thin. If it's an action film - keep it action. If it's a story driven film, don't worry too much about the effects and action. Wolverine is another character that could have his entire past pulled apart and done as a film or series of films. However when you have people on the edge of their seats going "pop yer claws....go on...do it", you're kinda looking at a lost cause.

That's why Thor for me just feels like a film that will miss because it won't translate well to film. Comic readers who suspend their disbelief enough to read a superhero book don't worry too much about what happens. Hell the world could blow up, or the universe go pop, and it would be just another page in the book. Try bringing that to the silver screen though. Giving it enough back story to make you believe in the character/power, and then putting it in a progressive situation that creates at least 1 start->end story.

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.

Here's hoping i'm wrong.

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: