|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 24, 2019 2:04:15 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.
Stark's never really been a spring chicken type, a ladies man for sure but not one you're likely to see posing for women's magazines anytime soon. Lot of women hook up with him mostly because of how smooth a talker he is, his intelligence, and his wealth, all of it makes up for the lack of a sharp and buff figure. Also never agreed upon the idea of Clint Eastwood as Tony Stark for an older adaptation, either. Both RDJ and Jackman are great actors when all is said and done, I don't think RDJ would work as Wolverine but I don' think Jackman would work as Stark, either.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 24, 2019 2:13:21 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 So PTSD isn't a mature topic to cover? Somebody needs to do their research, as said before PTSD can be harder to overcome than alcohol addiction. I can't really name many superhero movies which really dive that far into the effects of it, maybe in tiny doses but not to the level where medication is spoken of, where lack of sleep is acknowledged, and heart elevation is used for character growth. The term "artistic merit" has no particular boundaries, anyone can view any work of art, music, film, literature, sculpture, or painting with perception of quality and or value regardless of genre and origin, the best of the X-Men and the best of DC have no more or less artistic merit than the best of the Marvel Cinematic Universe because it is very subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 3:04:16 GMT
Stark's never really been a spring chicken type, a ladies man for sure but not one you're likely to see posing for women's magazines anytime soon. Lot of women hook up with him mostly because of how smooth a talker he is, his intelligence, and his wealth, all of it makes up for the lack of a sharp and buff figure. Also never agreed upon the idea of Clint Eastwood as Tony Stark for an older adaptation, either. Both RDJ and Jackman are great actors when all is said and done, I don't think RDJ would work as Wolverine but I don' think Jackman would work as Stark, either. Eastwood was considered as an older Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are interchangeable in appearance in the comics. If Jackman can be accepted as a rough character like Logan--then he can easily do the same for Tony Stark. He would just be less of a nerd. Or put another way--Jackman is less of a stretch as Stark than RDJ is as Wolverine.
I still think Robert Taylor is closer to Stark than Eastwood, Jackman, etc. I would have said Tom Selleck, but his voice is terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 24, 2019 3:15:19 GMT
Stark's never really been a spring chicken type, a ladies man for sure but not one you're likely to see posing for women's magazines anytime soon. Lot of women hook up with him mostly because of how smooth a talker he is, his intelligence, and his wealth, all of it makes up for the lack of a sharp and buff figure. Also never agreed upon the idea of Clint Eastwood as Tony Stark for an older adaptation, either. Both RDJ and Jackman are great actors when all is said and done, I don't think RDJ would work as Wolverine but I don' think Jackman would work as Stark, either. Eastwood was considered as an older Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are interchangeable in appearance in the comics. If Jackman can be accepted as a rough character like Logan--then he can easily do the same for Tony Stark. He would just be less of a nerd. Or put another way--Jackman is less of a stretch as Stark than RDJ is as Wolverine.
I still think Robert Taylor is closer to Stark than Eastwood, Jackman, etc. I would have said Tom Selleck, but his voice is terrible.
Lol. No. Bruce Wayne is quite more muscular than Tony Stark in the comics. And a lot more stoic.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 24, 2019 3:17:40 GMT
Stark's never really been a spring chicken type, a ladies man for sure but not one you're likely to see posing for women's magazines anytime soon. Lot of women hook up with him mostly because of how smooth a talker he is, his intelligence, and his wealth, all of it makes up for the lack of a sharp and buff figure. Also never agreed upon the idea of Clint Eastwood as Tony Stark for an older adaptation, either. Both RDJ and Jackman are great actors when all is said and done, I don't think RDJ would work as Wolverine but I don' think Jackman would work as Stark, either. Eastwood was considered as an older Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are interchangeable in appearance in the comics. If Jackman can be accepted as a rough character like Logan--then he can easily do the same for Tony Stark. He would just be less of a nerd. Or put another way--Jackman is less of a stretch as Stark than RDJ is as Wolverine.
I still think Robert Taylor is closer to Stark than Eastwood, Jackman, etc. I would have said Tom Selleck, but his voice is terrible.
Well actually Eastwood was never really in serious consideration for the role of Bruce Wayne in a movie, he was an idea The Hughes Brothers had when they tried out to reboot the series in the time between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins but it never took off, and no Darren Aronofsky didn't seriously want him as Batman for his movie either - that was just to grab Warner Bros.' attention, which it did. Never heard that one before, when people compare Stark to Wayne money, fame, and playboy lifestyle is really what's talked about(also butlers) not looks.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 3:43:07 GMT
Lol. No. Bruce Wayne is quite more muscular than Tony Stark in the comics. And a lot more stoic. But they are the same physical type. Put a mustache on Bruce Wayne, change his hair a little, you got Tony Stark. Comic illustration tends to be very simplistic about such things. That's why so many of the romance comics characters are interchangeable with the superheroes. The Ken doll guy looks like Steve Rogers etc.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 3:46:10 GMT
Well actually Eastwood was never really in serious consideration for the role of Bruce Wayne in a movie, he was an idea The Hughes Brothers had when they tried out to reboot the series in the time between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins but it never took off, and no Darren Aronofsky didn't seriously want him as Batman for his movie either - that was just to grab Warner Bros.' attention, which it did. Never heard that one before, when people compare Stark to Wayne money, fame, and playboy lifestyle is really what's talked about(also butlers) not looks. In the late 1980s people mentioned him for it if they did the Dark Knight. He would never have done it. In comic book art, they tend to draw the superhero characters a certain way. It's kind of a generic hero look.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 24, 2019 3:56:34 GMT
Lol. No. Bruce Wayne is quite more muscular than Tony Stark in the comics. And a lot more stoic. But they are the same physical type. Put a mustache on Bruce Wayne, change his hair a little, you got Tony Stark. Comic illustration tends to be very simplistic about such things. That's why so many of the romance comics characters are interchangeable with the superheroes. The Ken doll guy looks like Steve Rogers etc. Nope, still wrong. Not only is Wayne buffer and heavier set than Stark, he's also drawn with a squarer jaw whereas Stark has a leaner face. Wayne is usually drawn a lot more serious and angry whereas Stark is drawn with a happier, carefree expression. Really, the only thing you can say that's common to them is that they both have black hair. If you really want a Bruce Wayne lookalike then Frank Castle is closer.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 24, 2019 5:55:27 GMT
Well actually Eastwood was never really in serious consideration for the role of Bruce Wayne in a movie, he was an idea The Hughes Brothers had when they tried out to reboot the series in the time between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins but it never took off, and no Darren Aronofsky didn't seriously want him as Batman for his movie either - that was just to grab Warner Bros.' attention, which it did. Never heard that one before, when people compare Stark to Wayne money, fame, and playboy lifestyle is really what's talked about(also butlers) not looks. In the late 1980s people mentioned him for it if they did the Dark Knight. He would never have done it. In comic book art, they tend to draw the superhero characters a certain way. It's kind of a generic hero look.
Were those people fans or studio heads? If fans then he wasn't actually considered at all. Even so I've never seen anyone compare Stark and Wayne on a visual level.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 7:35:55 GMT
Nope, still wrong. Not only is Wayne buffer and heavier set than Stark, he's also drawn with a squarer jaw whereas Stark has a leaner face. Wayne is usually drawn a lot more serious and angry whereas Stark is drawn with a happier, carefree expression. Really, the only thing you can say that's common to them is that they both have black hair. If you really want a Bruce Wayne lookalike then Frank Castle is closer. I could take a picture of Bruce Wayne from 1968 and turn him into Tony Stark in about 10 seconds by changing his hair and adding a mustache. Or I could give him white side burns and make him into Dr Strange.
Eyebrows and extra lines dont matter-the basic body and face type is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 7:38:04 GMT
Were those people fans or studio heads? If fans then he wasn't actually considered at all. Even so I've never seen anyone compare Stark and Wayne on a visual level. I can't remember--was pre-internet so magazine articles--could have been either film gossip or a remark by someone in an interview or fan letter.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 24, 2019 7:39:47 GMT
Nope, still wrong. Not only is Wayne buffer and heavier set than Stark, he's also drawn with a squarer jaw whereas Stark has a leaner face. Wayne is usually drawn a lot more serious and angry whereas Stark is drawn with a happier, carefree expression. Really, the only thing you can say that's common to them is that they both have black hair. If you really want a Bruce Wayne lookalike then Frank Castle is closer. I could take a picture of Bruce Wayne from 1968 and turn him into Tony Stark in about 10 seconds by changing his hair and adding a mustache. Or I could give him white side burns and make him into Dr Strange.
Eyebrows and extra lines dont matter-the basic body and face type is the same.
And maybe if we were still in 1968 you might have been able to pass him off as Tony Stark. But we aren't in 1968 anymore, and artwork has gone a long way since then.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 24, 2019 7:45:15 GMT
And maybe if we were still in 1968 you might have been able to pass him off as Tony Stark. But we aren't in 1968 anymore, and artwork has gone a long way since then. It's the classic period. Anyway-just get a copy of How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way--you'll see Buscema has certain "types" for characters.
And I forgot Dr Strange can be turned into Marvel's Dracula fairly easily too.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 24, 2019 11:04:43 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 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. Nope dont buy it. No 10/10 woman is going to go with a guy who is drastically shorter. You can cite examples in real life, but i guarantee you it isnt a long term thing and most likely is a front.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 24, 2019 16:18:04 GMT
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. Nope dont buy it. No 10/10 woman is going to go with a guy who is drastically shorter. You can cite examples in real life, but i guarantee you it isnt a long term thing and most likely is a front. So you're saying no 10/10 woman would ever pick Zac Effron over Brandon Routh or Jason Statham over Kevin Durand or Marc Anthony over Ben Affleck?
|
|