Yeah, but they can get away with it because all the new people are playing much younger versions of those characters.
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is the one constant in all of the X-Men movies. To recast him at this point would be odd.
X-Men: Apocalypse announced for May 2016
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Yeah, but they can get away with it because all the new people are playing much younger versions of those characters.
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is the one constant in all of the X-Men movies. To recast him at this point would be odd.
It has to happen eventually but he's going to be one hell of a difficult act to follow.
Which still requires plenty of suspension of disbelief. James McAvoy doesn't look or sound remotely like someone who could age into Patrick Stewart. And Jennifer Lawrence could only credibly become Rebecca Romijn by shapeshifting, except that Mystique still looked like Romijn when she lost her powers in The Last Stand.
I'm sure that's what they said about Sean Connery and James Bond. Everything new is odd until you get used to it. I'm sure people found it odd to see McAvoy, Fassbender, and the rest taking over the roles, but now we've seen it done successfully twice, so we're over it.
By the time they actually get around to recasting Wolverine, I would rather they just reboot the whole damn series.
In the meantime, let's just leave him out of it. That character has gotten plenty of attention, and I feel like his story is more or less over. DOFP did a great job of providing him with some closure (so I'm a little skeptical of any future Wolverine installments). There's plenty of other X-Men. At this point in the timeline, let him go off and do Weapon X things for a while. We don't need to see him.
In the meantime, let's just leave him out of it. That character has gotten plenty of attention, and I feel like his story is more or less over. DOFP did a great job of providing him with some closure (so I'm a little skeptical of any future Wolverine installments). There's plenty of other X-Men. At this point in the timeline, let him go off and do Weapon X things for a while. We don't need to see him.
They already pretty much did. If you replace the entire cast and change the history of the universe, then to all intents and purposes it's a reboot, regardless of whether you include a time-travel excuse or not.
Yeah, but the reason there have been so many stories involving Wolverine is because he's a very popular character. The studio is not just going to stop using their most successful moneymaker. If Jackman retires from the role, then the role will be recast. If they recast it poorly and the new guy just doesn't catch on with audiences, then they might decide to retire the character. Or maybe they'll just recast him again.
Sometimes better. Andrew Garfield is a far better Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire (though a case can be made that Maguire makes a better Peter Parker). George Clooney was a much better Batman than Val Kilmer, or could've been if he'd had a better script. Don Cheadle was a much better Jim Rhodes than Terrence Howard. Ellen Page was a better Kitty Pryde than the two forgettable actresses who preceded her. Roger Moore was a better James Bond than George Lazenby -- and personally I think Timothy Dalton was a better Bond than Moore.
Honestly, though Hugh Jackman makes a good leading man, I've never thought he was a particularly good Wolverine. Logan isn't a handsome leading man type. He's a short, stocky, hairy, half-feral berserker who often seems more animal than human. Heck, he's called Wolverine because he's small and fierce, like the animal. The nickname was so incongruous for the 6'2" Jackman that it took them four movies before they thought up a plausible reason for it. So there must be someone out there who's as good and charismatic an actor as Jackman but closer in appearance and attitude to Wolverine.
Here are some of the actors I think would be good in the role, in terms of size/body type being more like the comics Wolverine, having some notoriety in Hollywood, and being willing to bulk up and look scruffy for the role.
I think Scott Caan would be the perfect choice, or the third Hemsworth brother, Luke.
(click to enlarge)
Of course they were forgettable. They were literally non-speaking, one-and-done appearances. Ellen was the first person to actually act the role rather than just walk through a wall and out of the story.
Respectfully disagree. Clooney was still in his 'smirking/head wobble' acting phase at that point. He'd make a much better Batman now.
As for Wolverine...I wanna see what Jon Bernthal would do with the role.
So it looks like Angel will be in the film. Is this Ben Hardy's role? And, if so, is it compulsory for the character to be played by actors called Ben?
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/34778/x-men-apocalypse-artwork-confirms-character-return
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/34778/x-men-apocalypse-artwork-confirms-character-return
I'd rather he cameo'd or had reduced roles in future films than be recast. It's not all about attachment to Jackman either. Wolverine's obviously been the star character so far, but it's about time other characters got a share of the spotlight. Jackman continuing but with a reduced role would fit the bill nicely.
What matters more: An actor looking like a character (depicted by probably three dozen or more different artists over time), or an actor actually playing the character well? This is the kind of talk that led to people saying 15 years ago that Glenn Danzig should be Wolverine because he's short, stocky, hairy and arguably half-feral if he has enough booze in him.
Obviously, what matters is the latter. But I'm saying that, if possible, it would be nice to have both. Not everything has to be a zero-sum choice. We've already had an effective leading man who wasn't all that similar to Wolverine; if the role is recast, obviously they wouldn't just abandon any interest in good acting in favor of a physical match, so it's a straw-man argument even to propose that. Of course they'd look for another good, charismatic actor. But there's no reason in principle why that actor couldn't be closer to Wolverine's type.
And I'm not just talking about appearance, I'm talking about personality. Maybe I've been spoiled by Cal Dodd's fantastic performance as Wolverine in the '90s animated series, but to me, Jackman has always seemed too civilized, too tame for Wolverine. He can get growly and angry, but he's never quite captured that sense of inner ferocity and turmoil that Dodd achieved. Jackman did okay as Romantic-Lead Wolverine, but I'd like to see someone who's more of a character actor play a less glamorous version of the character. Someone more in the vein of a Sharlto Copley, say. (I always used to think that Michael Hurst of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys could make a good Wolverine. He's short and muscular, and he's a fantastic actor. Before HTLJ, he was famous in New Zealand for his Hamlet, so he must be good at anguished, tragic antiheroes.)
Being "growly and angry" is rather limiting and it's not like Jackman's Wolverine doesn't do enough already. It's always interesting to note that Jackman was the understudy to Dougray Scott for the role of Wolverine and he's been indentified with the carhacter for more than a decade putting his own stamp on the role.
Strangely enough where John Byrne saw Logan as a psychopath, Frank Miller saw him as a failed samurai. But playing Wolverine as a rage filled character would only make him a rather limited character. Imagine what a Lobo movie would like.
^ A good example of what you describe would be the hero Hawk from DC comics.
Hawk who is aggressive and violent towards ally and enemy alike. Needing his partner Dove to follow him around and tell him to calm down.
Until someone puts him in his place. Normally when Hawk's mouth tries to cash a check his butt can't cash. My favorite example is Donna (WW's sister) laying the hurt on Hawk.
You have savage characters like Hawkman, Wolverine, Hulk and Lobo who can come off as growly and angry. However all of them have a charm or personality that attracts the reader to them and makes them likable.
Hawk from Hawk and Dove doesn't have that. He's a caveman with no redeeming attributes.
Hawk who is aggressive and violent towards ally and enemy alike. Needing his partner Dove to follow him around and tell him to calm down.
Until someone puts him in his place. Normally when Hawk's mouth tries to cash a check his butt can't cash. My favorite example is Donna (WW's sister) laying the hurt on Hawk.
You have savage characters like Hawkman, Wolverine, Hulk and Lobo who can come off as growly and angry. However all of them have a charm or personality that attracts the reader to them and makes them likable.
Hawk from Hawk and Dove doesn't have that. He's a caveman with no redeeming attributes.
Which is ironic, since Hawk was originally conceived as the hero of the two.
