Gal Gadot cast as Wonder Woman In ‘Batman Vs. Superman’
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
You seem to have overlooked or simply ignored the fact I was also referencing other films. Would you have felt better if I'd included Starship Troopers and Battlefied Earth and Altered States as films worse than I expected?
So unless you have something of relevance to contribute to the discussion at hand then you let it go. My reference was perfectly valid for the point I was making so get the hell off my back.
I've formed an opinion based off available evidence. She's too small, and her most well known previous role was the complete opposite of WW and poorly acted (although no one could have made that junk work). Outside of joke casting someone, she's one of the worst choices they could have made and still cast someone who looked remotely like WW.
Why is it such a big deal? My opinion doesn't effect your enjoyment of her casting. To me, she's a horrible choice, and almost certainly a horrible actress anyway. She's also in the sequel to an extremely mediocre movie, with a character written by a guy who has written maybe one good female character, ever. She fails in every category, and she has nothing to work with anyway. That's just my opinion, but I didn't just pull it out of thin air. I just arrived at a different conclusion based off what I saw and what I think about superheroes than you did.
This isn't some kind of universal absolute. For me, she could never play a good WW. Joss Whedon could be writing/directing the movie and she'd still be a horrible choice. She's a model who, up until now, only got roles her kind of actress deserves. She's about as appropriate choice for WW as someone like Megan Fox would be, and probably about as skilled an actress.
As I said above, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
That being said, there is nothing inherently invalid in forming an opinion about a movie (or other work of art) based on past experiences (or lack thereof) with the talent involved.
No one can see every movie. We all make decisions whether to see each movie based on various factors that lead us to form an opinion as to whether we might enjoy it. Those factors include the director, the storyline, the pretrial publicity and, yes, the actors.
In fact, if someone's pre-existing familiarity with an actor is not supposed to be a factor in marketing a movie, then why does Hollywood bother to spend money on big name actors who supposedly put butts in the seats? Why hire, for example, George Clooney and Sandra Bullock for "Gravity" when you could have (for much less money) hired Anthony Edwards and Amanda Peet? Why spend millions on getting Tom Hanks for "Captain Phillips" when you could have gone with his "Toy Story" co-star Tim Allen?
Ultimately it is still about forming opinions, and everyone is entitled to his or her own tastes.
That being said, there is nothing inherently invalid in forming an opinion about a movie (or other work of art) based on past experiences (or lack thereof) with the talent involved.
No one can see every movie. We all make decisions whether to see each movie based on various factors that lead us to form an opinion as to whether we might enjoy it. Those factors include the director, the storyline, the pretrial publicity and, yes, the actors.
In fact, if someone's pre-existing familiarity with an actor is not supposed to be a factor in marketing a movie, then why does Hollywood bother to spend money on big name actors who supposedly put butts in the seats? Why hire, for example, George Clooney and Sandra Bullock for "Gravity" when you could have (for much less money) hired Anthony Edwards and Amanda Peet? Why spend millions on getting Tom Hanks for "Captain Phillips" when you could have gone with his "Toy Story" co-star Tim Allen?
Ultimately it is still about forming opinions, and everyone is entitled to his or her own tastes.
So a model never deserves a chance at anything other than "junk work" roles? A former model doesn't "deserve" the opportunity to play a role that might require something more challenging than just being eye-candy ... perhaps even an Oscar-worthy performance?
There's an example of an "opinion" that is completely wrong.
The best course of action should you feel there is a problem is to notify the moderators and then let them handle it. As opposed to continuing to pursue the conflict.
This is rather narrow minded and a tad bit offensive too. But then again that is your M.O. So just curious, have you even seen 'Man of Steel' yet? No, didn't think so. You just continue to prejudge everything.
I on the other hand will keep an open mind, I did when I went and saw MOS, sure I had problems with it, but the good far outweighed the bad.
So a model never deserves a chance at anything other than "junk work" roles? A former model doesn't "deserve" the opportunity to play a role that might require something more challenging than just being eye-candy ... perhaps even an Oscar-worthy performance?
There's an example of an "opinion" that is completely wrong.
My best example is Jennifer Lawrence in these cases. She's not model thin (thankfully) but she could be a model if she wanted because she's attractive enough.
However she's got raw talent in spades when people who don't know her work would put her away as just another pretty face akin to Twillight's Kristen Stewart (i have rarely seen such a bad actress become so huge.. closest example is Megan Fox). She stars in another teenager hype drama but the difference is that she is simply leagues above in acting talent and i'm pretty sure some book fans lost their shit when she got cast.
So it's just petty ignorance and bias that lets some stomp their feet like a little child who didn't get their way and they are the negative examples people point out when talking about our little culture.. the people who get angry when the movie has the wrong color of the nacelles.
other actresses that started as models:
Charlize Theron
Jennifer Lawrence
Jaime King
Mischa Barton
Rebecca Romjin
Uma Thurman
Evangeline Lilly
Cameron Diaz
Angie Harmon
Famke Janssen
Kim Basinger
Milla Jovovich
Elizabeth Hurley
Andie McDowell
Tricia Helfer
Sharon Stone
Vanessa Williams
Halle Berry
Not a comprehensive list, but I think you'll find a few of them became good enough to win Oscars.
^ Good list. I was thinking specifically of Jessica Lange, but I knew there were plenty others.
^Excellent list and there's also Jessica Lange!
Edit - d'oh, ninja'd by Ancient Mariner
Edit - d'oh, ninja'd by Ancient Mariner
Some google shots of her look good, like when she's working out, but in empire's picture, she seems way to frail and weak
DC movies blow it again.
So a model never deserves a chance at anything other than "junk work" roles? A former model doesn't "deserve" the opportunity to play a role that might require something more challenging than just being eye-candy ... perhaps even an Oscar-worthy performance?
There's an example of an "opinion" that is completely wrong.
So it's just petty ignorance and bias that lets some stomp their feet like a little child who didn't get their way and they are the negative examples people point out when talking about our little culture.. the people who get angry when the movie has the wrong color of the nacelles.
Thats just hilarious. I never said any models shouldn't get a good role, I'm saying Gadot sucks in almost every conceivable way as a choice for WW and shouldn't get it. People have been hating casting choices/actors and arguing about them probably since movies and the actors themselves became a big thing. I hate Gadot, I think she's too small, and never done any good acting. My opinion is not wrong, its just not yours. Just because you like her doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make me biased, I just came to my own conclusion.
I find that, for me, my conclusions usually turn out to be right. I'll always think Gadot is horrible, and that is a perfectly valid opinion, just like people liking her is also valid. Some people like Michael Bay and twilight, and thats their right. You can like gadot all you like, and I can think she's a horrible actress who only isn't the worst choice for playing WW because she's at least the right gender.
Oh yes, I'm sure actresses like Jovovich will be winning Oscars anytime now
There have obviously been successful models as actresses. Models can be good actresses, but in theory so can anyone from any non acting job. I'm saying that a model shouldn't be WW, and every woman on that list would be a horrible choice (even in their prime for the older ones). Heck, of the people I know from that list several of them are fairly poor actresses (with Jovovich probably being the worst) and none would be fit to lead a superhero movie (which I think Berry proved rather spectacularly, regardless of the fact that she's a decent Storm in X-Men).
That list proves nothing. There have obviously been models who became actresses and made money/were "successful". Listing some does not prove Gadot is any good, it doesn't even prove the people on that list were any good.
Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions. I've obviously seen MoS, I've said so in that thread and I'm pretty sure you could understand that I've seen it just from my posts in this thread. I saw it as soon as I could get it from the library, the same month as the DVD release, I think. It was extremely mediocre. Better than The Dark Knight or TDK Rises, and not outright horrible, but mostly an extremely mediocre experience, with a few completely horrible moments like
(my thoughts on MoS are in spoilers, because I'm responding to Aldo and don't want to clog the thread, although there will be MoS spiler, too)
Johnathon Kent's death and Superman killing
I thought Superman himself was really boring and angsty. Cavil wasn't given much to work with, so its honestly hard to know if being extremely boring (to go along with Goyer's super angsty stuff) was a writing/direction problem, or a lack of skill on Cavil's part. Knowing Goyer movies, I can give Cavil the benefit of the doubt that he might be able to play a good Superman, but obviously not with Goyer.
Routh was about 100x better in Superman returns, and was more charismatic (and that's not to say Routh had much energy in Superman returns, like most of the rest of the movie he was fairly subdued) but he had more than Cavil and he was genuinely likeable, regardless of the other problems with the movie. Zod was fairly mediocre, and couldn't hold a candle to Terrance stamp. Costner wasn't great, and his character was written really badly. Russel Crowe got so much screen time for pointless plots that he was more of the main character than Clark. Amy Adams's Lois was barely written like the character, and plot convenience put her in way too many important roles.
I wasn't as put off by the action sequences themselves as some people were, and one or two moments were cool, but it was a ridiculous amount of destruction, and there was way almost certainly more death than the movie makers will admit to, although it wasn't all Superman's fault. The end scene was ridiculous, and Superman is not a character that needs to learn not to kill by experience. The whole point is that its wrong, and he always knows it. He could have done numerous things with Zod, including just flying upwards at the end.
I thought Superman himself was really boring and angsty. Cavil wasn't given much to work with, so its honestly hard to know if being extremely boring (to go along with Goyer's super angsty stuff) was a writing/direction problem, or a lack of skill on Cavil's part. Knowing Goyer movies, I can give Cavil the benefit of the doubt that he might be able to play a good Superman, but obviously not with Goyer.
Routh was about 100x better in Superman returns, and was more charismatic (and that's not to say Routh had much energy in Superman returns, like most of the rest of the movie he was fairly subdued) but he had more than Cavil and he was genuinely likeable, regardless of the other problems with the movie. Zod was fairly mediocre, and couldn't hold a candle to Terrance stamp. Costner wasn't great, and his character was written really badly. Russel Crowe got so much screen time for pointless plots that he was more of the main character than Clark. Amy Adams's Lois was barely written like the character, and plot convenience put her in way too many important roles.
I wasn't as put off by the action sequences themselves as some people were, and one or two moments were cool, but it was a ridiculous amount of destruction, and there was way almost certainly more death than the movie makers will admit to, although it wasn't all Superman's fault. The end scene was ridiculous, and Superman is not a character that needs to learn not to kill by experience. The whole point is that its wrong, and he always knows it. He could have done numerous things with Zod, including just flying upwards at the end.
MoS is one of the better Goyer DC movies, but that doesn't make it a good movie. If I gave it a number rating, it would be 5/10. Better than I expected, but still mediocre
Wrong. You did.
Wrong again, chief. Your post said, "She's a model who, up until now, only got roles her kind of actress deserves." - which is most definitely biased (against models), and flat out wrong (as evidenced by the number of models who did go on to have not only commercially successful careers, but critically successful as well).
Or do you concede that models do, in fact, deserve any number of roles, including those that require them to drastically change their physical appearance (see: Charlize Theron, Monster)?
I don't think Gal should be Wonder Woman in this movie.
Agent Diana Prince of Homeland Security, in a pants-suit, shooting terrorists for Uncle Sam.
Did Mulder and Scully carry guns?
They should have, but it just doesn't seem right.
Agent Diana Prince of Homeland Security, in a pants-suit, shooting terrorists for Uncle Sam.
Did Mulder and Scully carry guns?
They should have, but it just doesn't seem right.
No, i concede that individuals deserve any number of roles. I didn't mean that Gadot's type of actress was just a model turned actress. She's a purely eye candy actress, a c-list one they can hire cheaply to wear a bikini and throw herself around in stupid action junk. Someone doesn't need to have been a model to do that, and probably not every model turned actress fits that category. Gadot is Megan Fox with a thick accent, basically. Heck, Megan Fox probably had a more important, well defined character/role in the Transformers movies than Gadot had in F&F, and she's probably a better actress, too. Gadot being a model, and her general physical build, just effects her ability to not look like a toddler would knock her on her butt. The type of actress she is, while maybe connected to her being a model, isn't a definitive model turned actress thing (although its not exactly rare, either).
I don't get the comparison with Theron and that weird sounding movie. Its probably comparatively easy to gain random fat weight and make yourself just look generically ugly. At the very least, I can't think of anyone who couldn't physically do that, even if it took effort. There is a big difference between that and playing WW. Gadot just does not have the build or stature for it.
Yes Scully and Mulder carried guns.
I don't get it. No matter what body type she has, she is going to be a million times stronger than a mortal human woman of the same body type. So what the hell is the problem with suspension of disbelief here? No matter what she looks like, her power is impossible to achieve by a human woman that looks identical.
Same thing with Superman. Sorry, no matter how big his muscles are, Henry Cavill can't lift an oil rig, ahnd Christopher Reeve couldn't lift a helicopter.
Same thing with Superman. Sorry, no matter how big his muscles are, Henry Cavill can't lift an oil rig, ahnd Christopher Reeve couldn't lift a helicopter.
