|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 17:50:40 GMT
I dont agree to that, RDJ is a talented actor as talented as jackman. however I see how you can come to that conclusion because marvel made a total joke of the character after iron man 1 Just reverse their roles. Imagine Hugh Jackman as Tony Starrk. It works. Now imagine RDJ as Wolverine.
Nope-doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 17:55:55 GMT
I dont agree to that, RDJ is a talented actor as talented as jackman. however I see how you can come to that conclusion because marvel made a total joke of the character after iron man 1 Just reverse their roles. Imagine Hugh Jackman as Tony Starrk. It works. Now imagine RDJ as Wolverine.
Nope-doesn't work.
Have you seen what kind of roles Jackman played before Wolverine? If you asked me back then to imagine the boy from Oz playing Wolverine I would have laughed my face off. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 18:06:07 GMT
Have you seen what kind of roles Jackman played before Wolverine? If you asked me back then to imagine the boy from Oz playing Wolverine I would have laughed my face off. What I know is that RDJ would not have made an effective Wolverine. He only is passable as Tony Stark because Iron Man is a CGI costume.
That's why there are acting "types" because it isn't supposed to be a one size fits all thing with acting. Some work better for certain roles than others.
It's crazy to even compare them because they are so different in type.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 23, 2019 18:22:34 GMT
hugh jackman and Partick Stewart celebrated a world record of longest running people to appear in a movie series or something like that, Well that was proved wrong very quickly What the fuck is that? Don't give a shit and can't see why anyone really should
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 19:51:48 GMT
Have you seen what kind of roles Jackman played before Wolverine? If you asked me back then to imagine the boy from Oz playing Wolverine I would have laughed my face off. What I know is that RDJ would not have made an effective Wolverine. He only is passable as Tony Stark because Iron Man is a CGI costume.
That's why there are acting "types" because it isn't supposed to be a one size fits all thing with acting. Some work better for certain roles than others.
It's crazy to even compare them because they are so different in type.
You don't know that. You're basing this all off from thinking RDJ can only play a character like Tony Stark, yet if we did the same to Hugh Jackman before he played Wolverine he wouldn't have fit either. And while I agree that there are acting types, Jackman's acting "types" were completely different from Wolverine before being cast in X1. At least RDJ had a far more diverse and impressive resume before being cast as Stark than compared to Jackman before he was cast as Logan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 20:07:11 GMT
You don't know that. You're basing this all off from thinking RDJ can only play a character like Tony Stark, yet if we did the same to Hugh Jackman before he played Wolverine he wouldn't have fit either. And while I agree that there are acting types, Jackman's acting "types" were completely different from Wolverine before being cast in X1. At least RDJ had a far more diverse and impressive resume before being cast as Stark than compared to Jackman before he was cast as Logan. I am basing it on RDJ's physicality, voice etc. He is not the Wolverine type anymore than he is the Mystique type. Jackman was the romantic leading male type.
He is not the comics version--but he works ok because they changed the character to a leading man character and for mainstream audiences that is perfectly fine. The only way RDJ would work as Wolverine is if they made him into a quirky nerd like Nightcrawler. But that is not an action character.
Or since some people thought Jackman resembled a young Clint Eastwood, imagine RDJ as Dirty Harry. Do you really see him saying "well do ya punk?" with the same kind of threatening personality?
Impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 20:16:41 GMT
You don't know that. You're basing this all off from thinking RDJ can only play a character like Tony Stark, yet if we did the same to Hugh Jackman before he played Wolverine he wouldn't have fit either. And while I agree that there are acting types, Jackman's acting "types" were completely different from Wolverine before being cast in X1. At least RDJ had a far more diverse and impressive resume before being cast as Stark than compared to Jackman before he was cast as Logan. I am basing it on RDJ's physicality, voice etc. He is not the Wolverine type anymore than he is the Mystique type. Jackman was the romantic leading male type.
He is not the comics version--but he works ok because they changed the character to a leading man character and for mainstream audiences that is perfectly fine. The only way RDJ would work as Wolverine is if they made him into a quirky nerd like Nightcrawler. But that is not an action character.
Or since some people thought Jackman resembled a young Clint Eastwood, imagine RDJ as Dirty Harry. Do you really see him saying "well do ya punk?" with the same kind of threatening personality?
Impossible.
And like I said, if you watched Jackman's previous roles prior to Wolverine you wouldn't think he was Logan material either. He also modulates his voice as Wolverine to make it lower and rougher. Now, I'm not saying RDJ would make a good Wolverine, I'm saying you wouldn't have been able to tell if Jackman would make a good Wolverine prior to him being cast in the role. Besides, it's not as if Jackman nailed the comic-Wolverine character either.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 23, 2019 20:20:11 GMT
Besides, it's not as if Jackman nailed the comic-Wolverine character either. Your right, he made the character better. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 20:53:26 GMT
Besides, it's not as if Jackman nailed the comic-Wolverine character either. Your right, he made the character better. Lol. Quite a number of people would disagree with you on that. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 23, 2019 20:57:37 GMT
Your right, he made the character better. Lol. Quite a number of people would disagree with you on that. They are usually the hardcore comic fanatics who want to see everything comic accurate on screen without exception. If wolverine was short and hairy, no one would have bought the idea that Jean Grey would find him attractive over a stud like scott summers. Jackmans physique and looks makes their romantic arcs passable in the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 23, 2019 21:06:13 GMT
I dont agree to that, RDJ is a talented actor as talented as jackman. however I see how you can come to that conclusion because marvel made a total joke of the character after iron man 1 Just reverse their roles. Imagine Hugh Jackman as Tony Starrk. It works. Now imagine RDJ as Wolverine.
Nope-doesn't work.
Nah, Jackman wouldn't work as Tony Stark - doesn't have the look and is too much of a tank. Jackman also normally plays characters who would fight with their fists first than their gear or brains going by his usual selection of characters in the action-adventure genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 23, 2019 21:10:41 GMT
Lol. Quite a number of people would disagree with you on that. They are usually the hardcore comic fanatics who want to see everything comic accurate on screen without exception. If wolverine was short and hairy, no one would have bought the idea that Jean Grey would find him attractive over a stud like scott summers. Jackmans physique and looks makes their romantic arcs passable in the movies.Actually that the filmmakers didn't really try for that kinda speaks a lot of volumes of how less they wanted to respect the source material, it could've totally worked had they spent more time developing it but they pretty much rushed into it and made sure that Scott was just a foil for Logan's romantic pursuits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 21:15:30 GMT
Besides, it's not as if Jackman nailed the comic-Wolverine character either. I never said he did. The comics character is different--but, in the world of movies, it can be the case that a romantic leading man type can be acceptable --especially as they changed the character to a soft anti-hero wandering loner. He was rather skinny in X-men, but his personality distracted from it. Not every romantic leading man type could pull it off--I can't imagine George Clooney or Ben Affleck as Logan.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 23, 2019 21:19:23 GMT
They are usually the hardcore comic fanatics who want to see everything comic accurate on screen without exception. If wolverine was short and hairy, no one would have bought the idea that Jean Grey would find him attractive over a stud like scott summers. Jackmans physique and looks makes their romantic arcs passable in the movies.Actually that the filmmakers didn't really try for that kinda speaks a lot of volumes of how less they wanted to respect the source material, it could've totally worked had they spent more time developing it but they pretty much rushed into it and made sure that Scott was just a foil for Logan's romantic pursuits. It wouldnt have worked on screen for general audiences. And this isnt something fantastical or wondrous, its basic human attraction. A woman like Famke whose a 10 would not leave Scott for a hairy midget whose tall as Ellen Pages kitty pryde at around 5"4 |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 21:22:09 GMT
Nah, Jackman wouldn't work as Tony Stark - doesn't have the look and is too much of a tank. Jackman also normally plays characters who would fight with their fists first than their gear or brains going by his usual selection of characters in the action-adventure genre. Jackman is closer to the comics version of the character--a ladies man type. He's not ideal-but he is closer to it than RDJ is. If one can imagine Clint Eastwood as Tony Stark then one can imagine Jackman as a "lighter" version of the same.
RDJ is a nerd. He worked ok for that re-interpretation, but it wears out its welcome fast. In the scene where he fights Thanos and says something like "dont get me angry" there is zero menace or threat in his words because he just cannot be like that. Not enough gravitas, because RDJ is not that type of actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 23, 2019 21:39:32 GMT
It wouldnt have worked on screen for general audiences. And this isnt something fantastical or wondrous, its basic human attraction. A woman like Famke whose a 10 would not leave Scott for a hairy midget whose tall as Ellen Pages kitty pryde at around 5"4 I think it *may* have worked in the story if the guy portraying Logan was unusually charismatic. It's not like those mutants have much choice in relationships when they are busy on missions all the time! It is however unlikely. Then again one hears about bizarre relationships where 6 foot models marry guys much shorter and ugly. I was astounded to hear Angie Everhart was in a relationship with Joe Pesci (assuming it wasn't made up for publicity)--and she must have been around the same age as Famke Janssen was when she started the X-men movies so it wasn't like she had to settle. The ultimate odd couple.
|
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 23, 2019 21:50:43 GMT
Looks like you don't really know much about how bad the effects are for people with PTSD can be, for some people getting over PTSD is harder than alcoholism. Also, you can try to paint the Fox X-Men movies out to be some genuine cinematic artistries till the cows come home but like the MCU they're bonafide "McMovies", i.e. easily marketable, no-brainer entertainments you do not have to go in a long search for. disney rejected the story line not for rdj but because it will make the movie heavy and too adult for kids. when it comes to comic movies the best of xmen and the best of dc are the closest thing to artistic merit for the genre just even for the basic reason those movies had creative freedom, were more drama driven than followed a co-operate formula for cheap fun and jokes
|
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Feb 23, 2019 22:53:36 GMT
Looks like you don't really know much about how bad the effects are for people with PTSD can be, for some people getting over PTSD is harder than alcoholism. Also, you can try to paint the Fox X-Men movies out to be some genuine cinematic artistries till the cows come home but like the MCU they're bonafide "McMovies", i.e. easily marketable, no-brainer entertainments you do not have to go in a long search for. disney rejected the story line not for rdj but because it will make the movie heavy and too adult for kids. when it comes to comic movies the best of xmen and the best of dc are the closest thing to artistic merit for the genre just even for the basic reason those movies had creative freedom, were more drama driven than followed a co-operate formula for cheap fun and jokes Is that what you were saying about 'Man of Steel' or 'X-Men: Apocalypse'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 22:58:07 GMT
Actually that the filmmakers didn't really try for that kinda speaks a lot of volumes of how less they wanted to respect the source material, it could've totally worked had they spent more time developing it but they pretty much rushed into it and made sure that Scott was just a foil for Logan's romantic pursuits. It wouldnt have worked on screen for general audiences. And this isnt something fantastical or wondrous, its basic human attraction. A woman like Famke whose a 10 would not leave Scott for a hairy midget whose tall as Ellen Pages kitty pryde at around 5"4 Women leave decent boyscout bfs for hairy bad boys all the time. It's not unheard of you know. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 24, 2019 1:51:08 GMT
Actually that the filmmakers didn't really try for that kinda speaks a lot of volumes of how less they wanted to respect the source material, it could've totally worked had they spent more time developing it but they pretty much rushed into it and made sure that Scott was just a foil for Logan's romantic pursuits. It wouldnt have worked on screen for general audiences. And this isnt something fantastical or wondrous, its basic human attraction. A woman like Famke whose a 10 would not leave Scott for a hairy midget whose tall as Ellen Pages kitty pryde at around 5"4 Guess you're not familiar with the fable Beauty and the Beast and its mythological origins(Cupid and Psyche) of which Jean and Logan's romance could be interpreted as a variation of the tale. Also, there are number of A to B list bombshells in the world who are with men who are not exactly on par with their beauty - Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas, Salma Hayek and François-Henri Pinault, Paulina Porizkova and Ric Ocasek, Isla Fisher and Sacha Baron Cohen, Malin Akerman and Robert Zincone, Christina Hendricks and Geoffrey Arend, Michelle Yeoh and Jean Todt, Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton, etc. Looks are not everything.
|
|
