Thor: Ragnarok

[Greg Cox]

But you're picking and choosing your historical perspective, not to mention the vast differences in scale. You're arguing that because the larger products are both about myth, the specific actors don't really matter, and in so doing, you're implicitly putting the Anthony Hopkins, from a major motion picture franchise, on equal ground with some nobody from a cheap, mostly-forgetten niche TV show.

Forget the myth thing; that's a red herring. My main point was that THOR is a pulp fantasy adventure, based on a comic book. FLASH GORDON was a pulp space opera adventure, based on a comic strip. And "major motion picture franchise" aside, are you really arguing that the THOR movies exist at a higher artistic level than XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS--just because Anthony Hopkins is in them?

(Hopkins was in the WOLF MAN remake, too. Doesn't make it a work of high art.)

Don't get me wrong. The THOR films are possibly my favorite Marvel movies, and I was a huge XENA fan back in the day. But, honestly, I think you're skewing things a bit by asserting that THOR: RAGNAROK is somehow to be held to a higher standard than previous pulp fantasy comic-book adventure movies.

(And, seriously, you're dismissing XENA as "cheap" and "most forgotten"? Them's fighting words, by the gods. )

 

[tomalak301]

She just wants a more substantial career. Its probably getting hard for her to differentiate herself in a superhero movie. She also probably does not wan to be typecast. I can understand her reasoning.

Wasn't she queen amadala in Star Wars? If she wasn't typecast there, she shouldn't be worried about it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's interesting that we're getting Skurge but not Amora the Enchantress. I guess since they're already featuring Hela as the villain that the Enchantress would be somewhat redundant, and so they decided to use Skurge as Hela's muscle instead.

My hope is the Executioner survives and he and Amora can be back at a future date.

Don't be so sure. As I mentioned on the Marvel Cinematic Universe thread, and have since used Wikipedia to confirm, Valkyrie's first ever appearance (Avengers #83, 1970) was actually Amora in disguise. And especially with Tessa Thompson's version of the character supposedly serving as the new love interest, I can totally see them using that element to set up a villain reveal late in the film.

I'd rather they not. Not because I have a problem with that idea but because I'm hoping Surtur is in the movie and it would be way too much villain overcrowding with the Enchantress as well. To me, they should save her for a movie with room to breathe.

Interesting answer. Maybe it's just that my expectations were shaped in an era when we possibly didn't take sci-fi and superhero movies quite so seriously, or maybe it's just that some of us are simply, by nature, more comfortable with that the idea that, well, these are simply theatrical productions after all. They're smoke and mirrors, creating illusions for our entertainment.

Not saying that attitude is better, just different.

It's fascinating, really. All of us watch movies and theater in two different ways, simultaneously. On one hand, we trick our brains into thinking what we're seeing is real ("No! Don't go in the basement!"), but at the same time we're also viewing the film as an artifact, a work of art. ("Wow, look at gorgeous cinematography. And the acting . . . Tom Hiddleston is really knocking it out of the park in this scene!")

Like I said, all of us do this every time we're in a theater, but I have a pet theory that there's a spectrum among moviegoers where some people lean more to experiencing a movie on an immersive level while others lean toward a more aesthetic approach--with every gradation in-between.

I suspect that viewers on the immersive end of the spectrum have a harder time with recasting than those who never really forget that they're watching a piece of theater, performed by actors on sets.

Why today's audiences seem to fall more on the immersive end of things is an intriguing question. Maybe less exposure to live theater, as Ovation suggested?

The better production quality is probably another factor. It's much easier to be completely immersed when it looks that real and a change in actors takes you out of that immersion.

 

[Greg Cox]

The better production quality is probably another factor. It's much easier to be completely immersed when it looks that real and a change in actors takes you out of that immersion.

Possible. It used to be you had to meet the filmmakers halfway by ignoring the fact that, say, the Hulk was just a bodybuilder wearing a fright wig and green greasepaint. So if they switched actors on you, too, that was just another accommodation to make. But maybe modern audiences really don't want to be "knocked out of the story" by anything that might remind them that it's just a movie--because they're used to photo-realistic SFX, location shooting, Technicolor, and so on?

Not a bad theory.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Possible. It used to be you had to meet the filmmakers halfway by ignoring the fact that, say, the Hulk was just a bodybuilder wearing a fright wig and green greasepaint.

Not to mention his very visible shoes in some shots....

 

[Greg Cox]

Getting back to the movie, I'm guessing that it will be the real Valkyrie. That first appearance where she turned out to be the Enchantress in disguise is kind of an aberration at this point; she's been the real Valkyrie for most of her comic-book career, dating back to at least DEFENDERS #4 (which I remember picking up at a 7-Eleven way back when). Mind you, her comic-book continuity is ridiculous convoluted at this point, so I suspect they will streamline it considerably for the movies!

 

[The Old Mixer]

Of note is that we got her sister Lorelei on AoS, which suggests that the movie people called dibs on the Enchantress herself...so they may have plans for her....

 

[Greg Cox]

P.S. Can't resist pointing out that the first THOR movie even referenced XENA. "Robin Hood, Jackie Chan, and Xena, " remember?

Not bad for a "cheap, mostly forgotten" tv show.

 

[ichab]

Some roles are easier to recast than others. It worked great with War Machine and the Hulk. But when it comes time to recast Ironnman and Captain America I don't think it will go over so well. Both Robert Downey jr and Chris Evans embody those roles so well that it will be impossible for many people to accept replacements.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Morton Downey jr

Wrong Downey, Jr.

 

[Greg Cox]

Wrong Downey, Jr.

Now that's some serious recasting!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Some roles are easier to recast than others. It worked great with War Machine and the Hulk. But when it comes time to recast Ironnman and Captain America I don't think it will go over so well. Both Morton Downey jr and Chris Evans embody those roles so well that it will be impossible for many people to accept replacements.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ichab]

Yeesh! Just showed my age with that slip.

 

[Greg Cox]

For what's worth, I still can't keep Michael C. Hall and Anthony Michael Hall straight.

 

[John Clark]

For what's worth, I still can't keep Michael C. Hall and Anthony Michael Hall straight.

Yeah, I've had moments like that expecting Dexter to show up in an episode when it's actually Anthony Michael Hall who has popped up in the credits.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I forgot to comment on Hopkins return in my other post. It is a big surprise since pretty much everything I'd seen before this said he would be returning. I'm glad since he was awesome as Odin.
I have to admit, when I made my other post I hadn't really though about recasting. I wouldn't be totally against that, after all we already got recast Rhodey and Hulk, and I think Rhodey at least worked out better in the long run. I just don't know if there's many actors out there who could replace Anthony Hopkins.

How about Brian Cox, they practically look like brothers.

 

[JD]

Not a bad choice.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Especially since Anthony Hopkins replaced Brian Cox in a well-known role (Hannibal Lector).

 

[Turtletrekker]

Wow. File this one under "dodged bullets"...

Mel Gibson claims to have turned down "Odin" role.

ETA: Nothing against Gibson's acting ability, I just think Hopkins is so much better of a fit. Marvel gave RDJ a chance after some questionable life decisions, so this makes sense on that level. So does Marvel of the era trying to low-ball a big name trying to shake off some controversy.

 

[Greg Cox]

FYI: Anthony Hopkins is interviewed in USA TODAY today (regarding THE DRESSER) and he confirms that he's in RAGNAROK and mentions that he has no intention of ever retiring.