I didn't know he was that tall. He certainly doesn't seem it in the films that I have seen him in, but regardless of his physicality, he is a capable actor which is all that matters. I think Half-Nelson definitely proved his acting chops.
Ryan Gosling to portray Hal Jordan/Green Lantern
- Thread starter PKerr
- Start date
And neither did Wil Smith seem like a movie star. The difference is that when moving on to film, all of those actors immediately gained recognition for their respective roles.
Boreanaz and Browder have just not shown the range that a film actor needs. They are both charismatic and fun to watch and I am a fan of Angel, Farscape and Stargate too. They just always play variations of the same character each and every time they step up to the plate. If DB portrayed his Bones character as different from Angel or Browder played Cameron different from Chrighton (sp?) I would think otherwise, but they didn't.
^ But lots of actors basically play variations on themselves in every movie and become big stars. Nicholson, Eastwood, Sam Jackson, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner to name but a few. Not everyone has the diversity of Ed Norton or Daniel Day-Lewis.
I haven't watched Bones and so can't comment on whether or not Boreanaz differs from Angel in it. But we're talking about Green Lantern, not Hamlet here. What does he need to do, look heroic and hunky, crack wise and kick ass?! On the basis of Angel, which I've seen all of, I do think he'd be more than capable of playing the part. Certainly as least as much as any of the actors in Fantastic Four, most of whom came from tv - Chiklis, McMahon, Gruffyd, Alba, etc.
I haven't watched Bones and so can't comment on whether or not Boreanaz differs from Angel in it. But we're talking about Green Lantern, not Hamlet here. What does he need to do, look heroic and hunky, crack wise and kick ass?! On the basis of Angel, which I've seen all of, I do think he'd be more than capable of playing the part. Certainly as least as much as any of the actors in Fantastic Four, most of whom came from tv - Chiklis, McMahon, Gruffyd, Alba, etc.
I think WB is trying to really go for an "actor" type, like they did with Christian Bale for Batman. Nolan cast supremely talented and A-list film actors, and not someone from a TV show (i.e. the Fantastic Four films). While I love actors like David Boreanaz and Nathan Fillion, they aren't really film actors, so I can see why WB is wisely going for someone like Ryan Gosling or in his league/caliber. I think it's a smart choice, as much as I would like to see someone like Boreanaz or Fillion in the role.
So, Rachel McAdams for Carol Ferris, then?
That might actually work, in all seriousness. She didn't get the Sue Storm part in Fantastic Four so this might be her time to shine in a superhero film.
Plus, I have a feeling she'd have good chemistry with Gosling.
I can't believe after years of mega comic book hits it has taken DC and Warners so long to make a Green Lantern film. After the last several years of comic book movies, Green Lantern will seem so unique.
Ryan Gosling seems more Kyle Rayner like to me, but whatever, he's a good actor. Get the film on the screen already.
Ryan Gosling seems more Kyle Rayner like to me, but whatever, he's a good actor. Get the film on the screen already.
Well, I can sort of see why WB would be hesitant: Green Lantern is an unproven property much like Iron Man was and plus it would be a pretty expensive misfire if the film was unsuccessful (think Star Wars...but unsuccessful financially, with those huge budgets).
I think after an unknown property like Iron Man proved to be very successful, WB re-thought some of their heretofore unproven comic-book characters like Green Lantern, The Flash, etc, and realized that if Iron Man can be successful, so can these guys. And then The Dark Knight happened.
Also, take into consideration that The Dark Knight was the first real huge comic-book film hit for WB. Everything else (Constantine, V for Vendetta, Catwoman, Batman Begins) were either modest hits or misfires, so perhaps the desire to invest more than $100 million into these characters that don't have a huge fanbase to begin with (in WB's mind) seemed like a risky proposition, which is kind of understandable.
I think after an unknown property like Iron Man proved to be very successful, WB re-thought some of their heretofore unproven comic-book characters like Green Lantern, The Flash, etc, and realized that if Iron Man can be successful, so can these guys. And then The Dark Knight happened.
Also, take into consideration that The Dark Knight was the first real huge comic-book film hit for WB. Everything else (Constantine, V for Vendetta, Catwoman, Batman Begins) were either modest hits or misfires, so perhaps the desire to invest more than $100 million into these characters that don't have a huge fanbase to begin with (in WB's mind) seemed like a risky proposition, which is kind of understandable.
^^^
Marvel realized this with Blade, I think.
Too bad WB doesn't seem to want to risk much beyond a million failed Superman starts and the everlasting Batman franchise. Or at least didn't.
Marvel realized this with Blade, I think.
Too bad WB doesn't seem to want to risk much beyond a million failed Superman starts and the everlasting Batman franchise. Or at least didn't.
Funny enough, though, TDK does feature a few tv actors in prominent roles. The mayor was played by Nestor Carbinelli from Lost, William Fichtner from Prison Break was the bank manager, Eric Roberts from Heroes was Marconi, while an uncredited Nicky Katt (Boston Public) was one of the cops during the chase scene. And Begins featured Katie Holmes (Dawson's Creek), while her DC co-star Joshua Jackson was one of the last few on the shortlist for Batman himself.
I think you're right about WB opting for a bigger name, but I think that's possibly short sighted on their part. Bale wasn't a box office draw when cast in BB (indeed, most of his last few wannabe blockbusters had flopped - Reign of Fire, Equilibrium), Tobey Maguire was hardly a Tom Cruise-like name when cast in Spider-man. And casting names like Nic Cage or Ben Affleck didn't really make Ghost Rider or Daredevil more than modest hits. Then you have Oscar winner Halle Berry in the flop Catwoman and Keanu Reeves (mis)cast in the underwhelming Constantine.
Robert Downey junior was undoubtedly part the reason for of Iron Man's success, but he was cast in the face of studio scepticism, being box office poison at the time. OTOH, casting the comparably talented (IMHO) Ed Norton didn't do an awful lot for The Incredible Hulk. And Norton had probably had a better commercial run over the last few years than RDJ.
In short, I don't think there's a general science or formula to casting actors in comic adaptations, beyond getting the right actor for that particular part. That's why a has-been tv actor (Pierce Brosnan) could be a successful James Bond as could the little-known UK indie movie and tv star who succeeded him (Daniel Craig).
It shouldn't be forgotten either that tv no longer is the poor relation of the movies, what with the acclaim rightly lauded on the likes of The Sopranos, THe West Wing, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Mad Men, Lost etc. And if the likes of George Clooney, Bruce Willis, Will Smith and others can become movie stars, then I suspect that Fillion (who is a breakout star waiting to happen, IMHO), Josh Holloway (Lost), Jon Hamm (Mad Men), Wentworth Miller (Prison Break) and Boreanaz can too.
Well, I wasn't speaking of box office draw, I was speaking more of possibly considered more credible actors because they've been in films and such, at least for the main roles. While The Dark Knight did have some fairly significant roles going to TV actors, the main roles (The Joker, Harvey Dent, Rachel Dawes) still went to high-caliber film actors, and my point was that for the main star of your movie, I think WB is looking more towards that league of performers, rather than someone like Boreanaz or Fillion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love both of those aforementioned actors, and I think either could do splendidly in the role. I mean, you mentioned Edward Norton for The Incredible Hulk, that's a fantastic example. He was an actor known for doing mostly independent films and Marvel and Universal probably went with him because of that. Again, I never mentioned anything about box office draw. I surely know that casting Christian Bale for Batman Begins back in 2004 was a huge risk for WB, because to regular audiences he was little known, and plus, he had just come off The Machinist, all emaciated. Nolan really fought and lobbied for him for the role.
I mean, Ryan Gosling is not nearly a box office draw. He's in the same category as Christian Bale and Edward Norton, talented up-and-coming actors (less so for Norton) with a lot of prestigious films to their credit and hardly a box office film to mention. But these are film actors, not predominantly TV actors, which was my point.
However, though, lastly: I will concede that TV actors have made their way into comic-book films, but you still mention the likes of Ben Affleck and Nicholas Cage. Regardless of the box office result, which sort of wasn't my point at all, whom have we seen cast as a major comic-book character that had a predominantly TV background? Katie Holmes would probably be the exception.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love both of those aforementioned actors, and I think either could do splendidly in the role. I mean, you mentioned Edward Norton for The Incredible Hulk, that's a fantastic example. He was an actor known for doing mostly independent films and Marvel and Universal probably went with him because of that. Again, I never mentioned anything about box office draw. I surely know that casting Christian Bale for Batman Begins back in 2004 was a huge risk for WB, because to regular audiences he was little known, and plus, he had just come off The Machinist, all emaciated. Nolan really fought and lobbied for him for the role.
I mean, Ryan Gosling is not nearly a box office draw. He's in the same category as Christian Bale and Edward Norton, talented up-and-coming actors (less so for Norton) with a lot of prestigious films to their credit and hardly a box office film to mention. But these are film actors, not predominantly TV actors, which was my point.
However, though, lastly: I will concede that TV actors have made their way into comic-book films, but you still mention the likes of Ben Affleck and Nicholas Cage. Regardless of the box office result, which sort of wasn't my point at all, whom have we seen cast as a major comic-book character that had a predominantly TV background? Katie Holmes would probably be the exception.
^^^
Why do you make such a distinction between TV and movie actors? Is there really that great a shift in quality when it comes to the well produced television shows?
It's pretty common knowledge that there really is no line any more, especially when you look at the movie stars working on TV, and vice-versa.
Keifer and Donald Sutherland, Sally Field, Charlie Sheen, Christian Slater. Those are all movie stars.
On TV.
Where's Patrick Stewart fit in this? Is he a TV star? A movie star? Theatre star? Or just an actor who probably doesn't mind what the medium is?
An actor is an actor. There are good ones and bad ones. To think otherwise these days is pretty narrow-minded.
Especially since the best of the best are nowhere near hollywood, but on stage.
Besides, when I think Ryan Gosling, the last thing that comes to my mind is movie star.
First is Breaker High and Young Hercules. He's nowhere near the status of a Norton or Bale.
Why do you make such a distinction between TV and movie actors? Is there really that great a shift in quality when it comes to the well produced television shows?
It's pretty common knowledge that there really is no line any more, especially when you look at the movie stars working on TV, and vice-versa.
Keifer and Donald Sutherland, Sally Field, Charlie Sheen, Christian Slater. Those are all movie stars.
On TV.
Where's Patrick Stewart fit in this? Is he a TV star? A movie star? Theatre star? Or just an actor who probably doesn't mind what the medium is?
An actor is an actor. There are good ones and bad ones. To think otherwise these days is pretty narrow-minded.
Especially since the best of the best are nowhere near hollywood, but on stage.
Besides, when I think Ryan Gosling, the last thing that comes to my mind is movie star.
First is Breaker High and Young Hercules. He's nowhere near the status of a Norton or Bale.
I don't think there's a distinction, but let's look at the facts:
- Christian Bale comes from movies. American Psycho, Equilibrium, Reign of Fire, etc. Perhaps not the biggest films, but films.
- Edward Norton, distinguished film actor.
- Robert Downey, Jr. Same thing.
- Tobey Maguire. Came from a background of doing indie dramas.
Was Rachel McAdams actually considered to play Sue Storm? I didn't know that. Hard to believe that Fantastic Four director Tim Story thought that Jessica Alba in a wig and blue contacts would be better than McAdams.
Yep, she was considered. I think she was like the second choice to play Storm.
Haha wow Rachel McAdams as Carol Ferris would be pretty crazy if Ryan Gosling got the part considering their past history. That in itself would create enough gossip romantic media buzz to publicize the movie, haha.
I think Ryan Gosling would be great. Seth Green and Justin Long...ehh no thanks. David Boreanz might not be bad, but not a big enough star to carry the movie? (Then again neither was Brandon Routh but Superman Returns was terrific)
I am just excited in thinking about the possibilites of a JLA movie. Bale, Routh and Gosling....it's building.
I think Ryan Gosling would be great. Seth Green and Justin Long...ehh no thanks. David Boreanz might not be bad, but not a big enough star to carry the movie? (Then again neither was Brandon Routh but Superman Returns was terrific)
I am just excited in thinking about the possibilites of a JLA movie. Bale, Routh and Gosling....it's building.
^That's if they could wrangle Bale into a Justice League movie, which seems unlikely.
Jackson, if you re-read my last post, I started by conceding that you're probably right that the studio will look for a more established actor than the likes of Boreanaz or Fillion - I'm just giving reasons as to why I think that's foolish of them.
As to your last question (assuming it's not rhetorical!) as well as Holmes, there's the cast of the FF - Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck, Ioan Grufyd from Hornblower and Century City, Jessica Alba from Dark Angel and Michael Chiklis from The Shield. Basically all the main roles, apart from The Human Torch. Going back a bit, there's also Patrick Stewart from some little-known tv space show or other in The X-Men or George Clooney from ER in Batman and Robin (he was still in the show when cast). And if an unknown can - and indeed should - be cast as Superman or a stage actor as Wolverine, then why can't a 'tv actor' play GL?
As I say, I agree with you that WB are probably looking at someone in the sort of standing that Bale or Maguire had pre-Batman or Spider-man. I just think that they should consider casting their net a bit wider. Many tv actors are just as talented as better know indie or commercial movie actors and if box office clout isn't a deciding factor, then they deserve a crack of the whip.
I'm sorry, Captaindemotion. I must have misread your post. And I totally agree with you -- I think someone like Boreanaz or Fillion could really nail the role of Hal Jordan. I wish they were in consideration (heck, who knows, maybe they are).
