Sign in to follow this  
Nombrecomun

General DC Discussion

Recommended Posts

Just for fun, who would you cast in the recently announced DC movies? Here's the list of movies:

May 2016 – Batman v Superman
July 2016 – Shazam
Xmas 2016 – Sandman
May 2017 – Justice League
July 2017 – Wonder Woman
Xmas 2017 – Flash and Green Lantern team-up

Speculation is that The Rock will be in Shazam and that Jason Momoa will be Aquaman in the Justice League movie. Wonder Woman has been cast but not much of a warm response for Gal Gadot. And we know the mixed feelings about Ben Affleck.

So, Green Lantern, Flash? Will there be a Martian Manhunter? Will it be mostly CGI? I suppose if they're going Aquaman then they might be forgoing on Shayera Hol(Hawkgirl) which would be a big mistake given how few female superheroes make it on screen.

Other movies? Who would you cast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the choices for the new Batman & Superman (Ben Affleck & Henry Cavill); it's the script (of Man Of Steel) that I had issues with.

And I also thought Amy Adams was an excellent choice for Lois Lane; even if her dialogue made her somewhat less-than-lovable at times.

As for the others?
Since I think that Shazam and many others on the list are a bad idea, I'll stick to only the ones I would care to see (at all; again, not a huge DC fan):

* Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern (and no, at 43 he's not too old... 40 is the new 30 ;) ). And I believe he already voices an animated version (?). Could be wrong on that one...

gl_article.jpg?1297226793

* Moon Bloodgood as Wonder Woman.

While I absolutely despised Terminator: Salvation, I thought she was quite striking as a warrior amazonian-type.

Moon-moon-bloodgood-10185514-400-500.jpg

* For The Flash? Bradley Cooper or Chris Pine. Either would be perfect.

bradley-cooper-hairstyle1.jpg090106-chris-pine-vsml.grid-4x2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I believe he already voices an animated version (?). Could be wrong on that one...

Nope. Not wrong about that. Several by now. Nathan would be great. It would instantly pull in Firefly fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

And I believe he already voices an animated version (?). Could be wrong on that one...

Nope. Not wrong about that. Several by now. Nathan would be great. It would instantly pull in Firefly fans.

Come on, Nombrecomun. I usually like your posts (going back to TW days) but Firefly isn't a reason to cast Nathan Fillion. I can just hear the bean counters now. "Yeah. Remember that old Fox TV series that didn't even last a season? If we use Nathan Fillion we draw in all five hundred of its fans!" I like the actor and think he would be a decent choice but a failed TV show on what then was a second tier network isn't going to factor into it. (And yes I know there are more brown coats out there than 500 but I was using exaggeration to make a point.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes I know there are more brown coats out there than 500 but I was using exaggeration to make a point.

Exaggeration makes your point absolutely moot. Fillion has more fans outside the realm of only Firefly. There's Castle which is a massively popular, now syndicated, series that's been on for several seasons. He also has a massive following after Dr. Horrible's Sing Along.

You know what the pull is? He's a good actor who can play comedically, dramatically, and every other which way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern (and no, at 43 he's not too old... 40 is the new 30 ;) ). And I believe he already voices an animated version (?). Could be wrong on that one...

I think whatever negatives there are for age are offset by the fact that the guy oozes charm.

I'd suggest, as I have before, Gina Carano as WW, and Pine works for me as The Flash.

I honestly can't think of going to a Shazam movie without laughing. Seriously and literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

And yes I know there are more brown coats out there than 500 but I was using exaggeration to make a point.

Exaggeration makes your point absolutely moot. Fillion has more fans outside the realm of only Firefly. There's Castle which is a massively popular, now syndicated, series that's been on for several seasons. He also has a massive following after Dr. Horrible's Sing Along.

You know what the pull is? He's a good actor who can play comedically, dramatically, and every other which way.

Actually, I had said earlier in my post I thought he WOULD be a decent choice. I was kidding Nom about the Firefly comment. The relevant part of the post says, " I like the actor and think he would be a decent choice but a failed TV show on what then was a second tier network isn't going to factor into it. (And yes I know there are more brown coats out there than 500 but I was using exaggeration to make a point.)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could actually see Pine as a GL.

Not really happy with Momoa as Aquaman. I could see him as Submariner, but not Aquaman.

And the Rock? Unless he's Black Adam, keep him away from Captain Marvel. He would be PERFECT as that villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Momoa will be fine. They need ti get away from the whole blonde pretty boy cartoon version to give him some credibility.

I'm pretty sure they'll steer as far away from the orange scaly tights as they possibly can.

Even so, I'm not really looking forward to a Justice League movie; it already feels like a Brand X version of "The Avengers."

It'd be better if DC took the high road and went another way with its superhero movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bizarre to me. They want Marvel's success without doing anything Marvel has done to build it.

They're shoehorning ALL of their heroes into one movie without giving any one of them (save Batman & Superman) the chance to build an audience individually. BIG mistake. From the first Iron Man movie on, Marvel clearly had a plan. DC efforts feel scattershot and desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman IS a blond pretty boy. That's the character. Being blond doesn't mean you can't be a badass. In fact, Aquaman IS a badass in the comics, and in the more recent Justice League cartoons.

When Hollywood changes characters, THAT is when they get in trouble.

It's the first sign that a movie won't be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman IS a blond pretty boy. That's the character. Being blond doesn't mean you can't be a badass. In fact, Aquaman IS a badass in the comics, and in the more recent Justice League cartoons.

When Hollywood changes characters, THAT is when they get in trouble.

It's the first sign that a movie won't be good.

I disagree.

Updating ideas that don't work is healthy.

It's not written in stone (only in paper) that Aquaman has to be a 'blonde pretty boy.' The image has become a bit of a joke (see: Big Bang Theory), and I think the producers would be wise to update it a bit.

The orange and green tights look very silly these days. Same reason we probably won't see Wonder Woman running around in star-spangled panties anymore either. You can't just graft a 50 year old comic book character directly onto a movie screen; cinema and comics are wildly differing formats, and what works for one won't necessarily work in another. There are reasons why change has to happen when adapting one medium to another.

Look at how Marvel updated Capt. America ("Winter Soldier" was a much darker, morally complex movie; and it was all the richer for it). Or the 1978 TV version of The Incredible Hulk grafted Dr. David Banner (not Bruce) onto a "Fugitive"-style storyline; helping out with small-scale injustices everywhere he went (rather than creating "She-Hulks" or punching out giant rock monsters). That worked out well for five seasons and several TV movies and is beloved to this day. And that was a major change/deviation from the comic books (which had the Hulk simply fighting super villains like every other action hero). Also, taking Thor out of 'demigod-dom' and making Asgard a more 'science fiction-y' environment was smart; it make Thor better fit into the more grounded universe of 2008's Iron Man. People can better accept that Thor is an extra dimensional being living in an outer-space realm than an actual demigod.

Change done smartly can be a good thing every now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not written in stone (only in paper) that Aquaman has to be a 'blonde pretty boy.' The image has become a bit of a joke (see: Big Bang Theory), and I think the producers would be wise to update it a bit.

The orange and green tights look very silly these days. Same reason we probably won't see Wonder Woman running around in star-spangled panties anymore either. You can't just graft a 50 year old comic book character directly onto a movie screen; cinema and comics are wildly differing formats, and what works for one won't necessarily work in another. There are reasons why change has to happen when adapting one medium to another.

Exactly. That Superman is from Krypton and is the ultimate boy scout matters far more to who the character is than the cape and tights, no matter how iconic those have become.

Try to put Aquaman in those orange tights on a big screen "serious" movie adaptation and the audience laughter would shake the walls. That's why the X-Men didn't make the leap in yellow spandex and actually made a joke out of it in the first film.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single incarnation of the character is a blond man. So that IS written in stone. The comics, the cartoons, even live action versions. Blond.

That doesn't make the character a joke. When playing in someone's playground, one should play by their rules, and if there's one thing we've learned, every movie where DC takes liberties has pretty much sucked.

Aquaman WAS updated, and he's a major badass. Have you ever seen how he was portrayed in DCAU? One appearance early on in the orange, and then he was more modernized like he is today.

They even showed how he lost his hand.

The comics took care of any issues with Aquaman. But he should be a blond male, not Jason Momoa.

Taking liberties only brings down the movies, because the judgement of these writers is usually poor. And yes, that includes Superman's dumb costume.

Superman IS the ultimate boy scout. He is not some brooding alien with issues. He has no issues. He knows what he wants to do and does it. Man of Steel completely missed the point of the character because I don't think the writers understand Superman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every single incarnation of the character is a blond man. So that IS written in stone. The comics, the cartoons, even live action versions. Blond.

Last I checked, comic books were printed on paper, not stone. ;)

And it's not as if armies of angry Aquaman followers will burn down the studio if he isn't a towhead.

It's called adaptation.

He can be whatever he needs to be to make a better movie. For me? It's about the actor; his presence, his confidence, his charisma. What he/she brings to the role.

Hair color is almost literally the very last thing I would care about. And who says Momoa can't simply dye his hair a few shades lighter, anyway?

Tom Cruise went blonde to play Lestat in "Interview With The Vampire" (a much beloved book) and despite the negative buzz about Cruise's casting? The movie still works well. It was a modest hit (and spawned a sequel years later). Even the author Anne Rice (one of Cruise's most vocal detractors at first) was on board with it once she saw him in the role. I'll admit that from reading Rice's book, Cruise is not at all what I had in mind for the role, but like it or not, he gave it his all and I think he did a decent job.

I will give Jason Momoa the benefit of the doubt (even though the idea of a Justice League movie is bubkes to me, anyway...).

I'd say Aquaman is probably a less demanding acting job for Momoa than casting Tom Cruise as a 6 ft. tall, almost platinum blonde, 18th century French nobleman-turned-vampire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would burn down the studio if they put nipples on Batman's costume, but that doesn't make it a good idea. :D

Iconic characters are iconic for a reason. Those that created the characters put traits and backstories into them that connected with the public. Writers who had nothing to do with that are not wiser than those that made the characters popular in the first place, and almost always, their ideas suck.

Are there exceptions? Sure. But DC movie writers like to change things without logic and usually, it doesn't go over well.

Superman's costume did not go over well. Neither did the movie because they didn't get the character.

So far, they have shown no sign of understanding what they are undertaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's not as if armies of angry Aquaman followers will burn down the studio if he isn't a towhead.

It's called adaptation.
He can be whatever he needs to be to make a better movie.

Exactly this. To put butts in the seats and make for a profitable film they'll make any changes they need to make.

The very few Aquaman fans who would actually be so ticked that they might boycott the movie over Momoa and not being blonde is statistically meaningless.

Worrying about him being blonde or not is as meaningless as worrying that Momoa's not Caucasian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would burn down the studio if they put nipples on Batman's costume, but that doesn't make it a good idea. :D

Iconic characters are iconic for a reason. Those that created the characters put traits and backstories into them that connected with the public. Writers who had nothing to do with that are not wiser than those that made the characters popular in the first place, and almost always, their ideas suck.

Are there exceptions? Sure. But DC movie writers like to change things without logic and usually, it doesn't go over well.

Superman's costume did not go over well. Neither did the movie because they didn't get the character.

So far, they have shown no sign of understanding what they are undertaking.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong but "Man Of Steel" (this movie that 'didn't go over well) is the movie of whose sequel(s) we are currently discussing, right??

While I may have issues with some of it, I'd say it went over pretty well. Well enough, anyway. The fact that DC is planning a multitude of sequels for it negates that very idea, doesn't it?

Aquaman's blond-locks are not a permanent feature of the character. BTW, audiences had no issues whatsoever with Lois Lane being a redhead, did they?

While I'm not a particular fan of Jason Momoa's (I've never seen him in anything, really), I say give him a chance.

Aquaman isn't such an iconic character that he is untouchable for adaptation.

I've seen too many 'bad' casting ideas that proved their critics wrong.

People said (back in the '80s) that "Mr. Mom" couldn't play Batman. He did. They said that the Star Trek characters could never be recast. They were. They said you could never have a blonde James Bond. They did. Tom Cruise couldn't play Lestat de Lioncourt. He did (admittedly up for debate; but the movie's success says he did well enough). I remember old farts (like myself) saying Sherlock Holmes could never be adapted into a 21st century era series. Well, the fact that BBC's Sherlock is one of my favorite shows speaks to just how wrong I was, doesn't it?

Have a bit of faith in actors; it's their job to be other people. That's what they DO.

I'm more concerned about the script and the writing than I am for the casting....

The very few Aquaman fans who would actually be so ticked that they might boycott the movie over Momoa and not being blonde is statistically meaningless.

^
This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will still always be the best Aquaman ever:

justiceleagueaquaman.jpg

Fight me. :P

I'll even take the predecessor in Superman Animated Series. After a Navy guy shoots this harpoon at him he orders the destruction of the ship. It's not necessarily the look. It's the character. BUT if Momoa is indeed the actor then having him blond would look real fake(kinda like the Mother of Dragons). He's relatively darker. "Blond" is not important even as we now see how Wolverine's hairstyle has changed from the usual comic book look. I don't think anybody cares and as others have said, if you do care about that then you're in the statistically insignificant minority.

Don't let something like that get in the way of enjoying the quality of the movie. And THAT is still in question given the previous movies.

STASfish08.gif

Edited by Nombrecomun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat Vie - what version of Green Lantern do you want Nathan Fillion to play?

Um.... Hal Jordan, I suppose (?). I read that, before Ryan Reynolds was cast, Fillion was up for it. He would've hit it out of the ballpark, IMO.

But back to the relevant question, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not much of a GL fan. More of a Marvel guy myself. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this