PDA

View Full Version : The Official Blake Lively & Carol Ferris Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

JustABill
01-09-2010, 04:54 AM
I could've swore I read online that Nolan had always wanted Katie for Rachel, I might have read wrong though. That the part was specifically made for her.

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 04:55 AM
Campbell knows what he's doing. All of his movies have great casting, imo.

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 04:55 AM
I could've swore I read online that Nolan had always wanted Katie for Rachel, I might have read wrong though. That the part was specifically made for her.

I think that's true. Strange, but true. :woot:

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 04:58 AM
Do you honestly believe that Campbell has absolutely no control over casting at all?

Were you one of the people who said the same thing about Reynolds?

Crook
01-09-2010, 04:59 AM
I read that. And it said "assuming Campbell cast her"

If Campbell himself cast her? Fine I'll give her a chance.

But I believe it's more likely she was cast because she is a no name and is cheap. They didn't want to pay for the likes of Monaghan, Green, Kruger or Russell.
Fella, you're jumping to inane conclusions. NONE of those names you just listed are expensive, nor do they carry a significantly higher salary than Blake. Kruger and Russell are barely working, Green isn't a viable name in Hollywood, and Monaghan is still waiting around for that one big hit. C'mon Ace, this is beyond a daft assumption.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to believe WB overtook casting decisions over Campbell. None. Especially when Campbell is just coming off a very tightly studio-controlled franchise, STILL handpicked his actress, and came out with gold.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:01 AM
Do you honestly believe that Campbell has absolutely no control over casting at all?

Were you one of the people who said the same thing about Reynolds?

Na, coz Reynolds is a good actor. Even though I think he's too charismatic for Hal Jordan (saw him as Guy Gardner more personally), I think he'll do a great job.

Fella, you're jumping to inane conclusions. NONE of those names you just listed are expensive, nor do they carry a significantly higher salary than Blake. Kruger and Russell are barely working, Green isn't a viable name in Hollywood, and Monaghan is still waiting around for that one big hit. C'mon Ace, this is beyond a daft assumption.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to believe WB overtook casting decisions over Campbell. None. Especially when Campbell is just coming off a very tightly studio-controlled franchise, STILL handpicked his actress, and came out with gold.

Maybe I am jumping to conclusions.

But the fact remains, those actress have had praised performances. Kruger only just this year in I.B.

What's this TV actress ever done?

Forgive me if I'd prefer actresses who have PROVEN they have talent in the movie world.

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:03 AM
You say 'T.V actress' as if it's a put down. Some of the best actors in the world work in T.V. these days.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:04 AM
Like who?

TV acting and movie acting are different propositions.

Crook
01-09-2010, 05:04 AM
I could've swore I read online that Nolan had always wanted Katie for Rachel, I might have read wrong though. That the part was specifically made for her.
No, you're right. But he says a lot of things that clearly come from a humble position. What's more telling is what Goyer said, since he actually wrote the script. When a radio station joked about Katie's performance during an interview, Goyer dodged it by saying (I'm paraphrasing here), "well you gotta accept that the studios will have some control over things and it doesn't always please you".

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:06 AM
Kiefer Sutherland, Tim Roth, Gary Sinise, Vincent D'Onofrio, Peter O'Toole, William Hurt, Glenn Close, John Lithgow, Toni Collette, Hugh Laurie. Just to name a few.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:07 AM
Yes... but those guys a are movie stars. They are great movie actors and actresses. And have now done TV shows.

**** guys like Roth, Hurt and Close are big screen LEGENDS.

It's a bit different than this Blake Lively situation.

jmc
01-09-2010, 05:07 AM
I personally believe direction is crucial behind an actor's performance. The best of the best can falter with someone who doesn't know what they're doing (Portman/Lucas), so I wouldn't say it so easily rests on the actress' ability.




I don't know if you've watched any Gossip girl episodes but she is very one dimensional in what she does in that show. Are the directors instructing her to act like that? Perhaps, but there have been episodes that have called for dramatic performance and she's come up short, so at what point do we stop blaming the director?

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:11 AM
All you asked me was to name good actors who are on T.V. shows right now. That's what I did. :woot:


Tim Roth is God.

Crook
01-09-2010, 05:13 AM
Na, coz Reynolds is a good actor. Even though I think he's too charismatic for Hal Jordan (saw him as Guy Gardner more personally), I think he'll do a great job.
I'll give you a hand. Stick with "I like Reynolds, I hate Lively". There's no need to justify it with misconstrued accusations. Studio intercedes for the female-lead, but doesn't for the more important lead role that the entire franchise rests on? You're giving me too many freebies here. :csad:

Maybe I am jumping to conclusions.

But the fact remains, those actress have had praised performances. Kruger only just this year in I.B.

What's this TV actress ever done?

Forgive me if I'd prefer actresses who have PROVEN they have talent in the movie world.And forgive me for placing faith in one of the best directors behind female casted roles. Everyone starts somewhere, I'm not about to expect a full-blown acting resume from a newbie in Hollywood. Fact is, Ben Affleck handpicked her to to be a female lead in his drama/thriller, and Campbell (unless otherwise proven) handpicked her over a pool of other talented and proven actresses.

Color me neutral, but hopeful.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:16 AM
Ok then coulour me neutral, but skeptical. :D

And actually, with the casting of Hal, wasn't it reported that the studio had a favourite in mind, and Campbell had a favourite in mind? Who's to say Reynolds was Campbell's favourite?

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:18 AM
It could have been like the Tobey Maguire/Spider-Man situation. Apparently Raimi wanted Wes Bentley and the studio wanted Heath Ledger. So they compromised.

Crook
01-09-2010, 05:19 AM
In spite of a show's long run, I consider that one role to be just that...one role. No, I have not seen any of GG, but one type of performance is not going to encompass my full opinion of an actor. I'll stop blaming the director, once the point comes where the actor has consistently delivered performances not up to par with the material (another crucial factor).

My faith rests on Campbell and Affleck's instincts as talented directors. I'll be the first to say I'm also not impressed with her current resume.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:19 AM
Yea maybe. Well, at least we didn't get Justin Timberlake :awesome:

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:19 AM
Ok then coulour me neutral, but skeptical. :D

That's the spirit, mate. :woot:

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:20 AM
edit

jmc
01-09-2010, 05:34 AM
But you can get a gauge of what the actor is capable of within that one long role. The comparison I'll make is with Thor's Jaimie Alexander, like Blake, Jaimie's got a light resume and like Blake has only had one predominant role on TV, the difference being there were subtleties in Jaimie's performance that made you feel for the character she was playing, you felt her pain and heartache, she was good to the point where she started to outshine the show's lead, you could just tell from watching her from that one role the girl has got talent. Blake on the other hand just hasn't produced anything like that, she's flat. Could a different role bring out her A-game? Of course, won't deny it, but based on her work to date you've gotta understand why some people don't like the idea of her casting in GL.

BojacRedleif
01-09-2010, 05:39 AM
I'm going to trust Martin Campbell on this one. She seems competent enough.

and GOOD LORD that woman is fine!

ultimatefan
01-09-2010, 05:40 AM
She´s sexy, doesn´t look too girly, but I can´t really comment on her acting, haven´t seen Gossip Girl or Sisterhood of Travelling Pants, and don´t feel particularly compelled to either. I may wait to see The Town or on Private Lives of Pippa Lee.

jmc
01-09-2010, 05:46 AM
Ok, I've calmed down after my earlier rants. Mr Campbell, anyone who can reinvent James Bond twice gets the tick of approval from me so you have my benefit of the doubt. You have your reasons for choosing Blake, I only hope she's better than what I've witnessed to date.

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 05:53 AM
^ This is like Chris Hemsworth as Thor. For a moment I was skeptical, than I realised that Branagh picked him. Just like Branagh, Campbell knows what he's doing.

jmc
01-09-2010, 06:00 AM
Meh, I'm still not sold on Hemsworth yet, irrespective of Branagh.

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 06:03 AM
I know you aren't. All we can do is hope for the best.

Green Ghost
01-09-2010, 06:04 AM
Thanks for reminding me of Famke and Eva! Now I have more faith in Blake Lively, but I would have still prefer one of the other candidates (Kruger, Russel, Green)...

Jake Cassidy
01-09-2010, 06:07 AM
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Boodika/spl44710_004.jpg


:wow:

I really hope Carol becomes Star Sapphire in the sequel. :woot:

Green Ghost
01-09-2010, 06:18 AM
I think she always looks so tired and kinda "used"...

rdh007
01-09-2010, 07:12 AM
First news on this production (which is near and dear to my geek heart) that has disappointed me. Pick a good Sinestro and I'm back in the fold.

baerrtt
01-09-2010, 07:14 AM
I trust Campbell as well given his record and if her part in Affleck's latest swung it for her so be it.....

However the cynical side of me suspects that her youth, conventional 'hotness' and the considerable fanbase of GOSSIP GIRL played into the decision to cast her ahead of the other actressess who are relatively more credible, at this stage, than she is. And because of that I can understand why some on this thread, and probably elsewhere, are cautious or unhappy about the news.

My opinion on the casting on GL, so far, is that it's feels too predicatable and safe and contrary to what some are saying Reynolds, looks, career and age wise, is a far safer choice to play any superhero compared to non-handsome comedian Michael Keaton, indie character actor Tobey Maguire or the public liability that was once Robert Downey Jr for example.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 07:51 AM
^ This is like Chris Hemsworth as Thor. For a moment I was skeptical, than I realised that Branagh picked him. Just like Branagh, Campbell knows what he's doing.

Hemsworth is awesome. Perfect for the role.

Branagh is awesome; quite possibly the best director Marvel has scored.



Blake Lively is indeed a half assed choice for Carol BUT she's safe.

And they could have done so much worse.


The Warners are indeed playing it really safe with GL. Wouldn't surprise me if it's a big name with an existing fanbase for Sinestro.

samsnee
01-09-2010, 07:52 AM
I've been forced to watch her "acting" on GG thanks to my wife. She's horrible. She mumbles so much.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 07:54 AM
:wow:

I really hope Carol becomes Star Sapphire in the sequel. :woot:

Didn't the casting call say her transformation to Sapphire begins in THIS movie?


I figured the scripts been changed drastically

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 07:56 AM
I've been forced to watch her "acting" on GG thanks to my wife. She's horrible. She mumbles so much.


She's a decent actress but she comes off like a kid in the way she speaks in everything I've seen her in, even in her scenes from her new movie.

Maybe they'll change the age of Carol here.

Chewy
01-09-2010, 08:05 AM
Didn't the casting call say her transformation to Sapphire begins in THIS movie?
I don't think so, it was included as part of the casting call as it is part of the character's history and actors trying out for the role should be aware of it but I don't think it ever stated Star Sapphire would appear in this film.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 08:06 AM
Very disappointed in this casting news, as I've already said in the other thread.

Why not get a PROVEN actress in the role? I mean, Gossip Girl? That isn't even a good TV show.

If they don't get some heavyweights for Hammond and Sinestro then my expectations levels will go waaaay down.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 08:09 AM
On an interesting note, given the casting of Gossip Girl's Lively, it would be amusing if got Armie Hammer and Leighton Meester as Superman and Lois Lane someday. They're mentioned often in the forums.

http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/Fannboi/Supes/013.jpg

http://quotes.whyfame.com/files/2009/11/leighton_meester.jpg

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 08:11 AM
No, no crappy TV actors for super hero films thanks.

Look at Marvel.

Bruce Banner has Liv Tyler.

Tony Stark has Gwenith Paltrow.

Hal Jordan has Gossip Girl :dry:

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 08:15 AM
Patrow and Liv Tyler are great in other roles, but their performances in their respective superhero movies weren't memorable in the slightest.


I don't think necessarily having established proven big names always helps.

Young Superman
01-09-2010, 08:16 AM
I think Blake Lively is too young for Carol Ferris, but I'll give her a chance.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 08:17 AM
Paltrow was great in Iron Man.

They don't have to be big names, but proven names that have experience in actual movies.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 08:21 AM
Lively has experience in actual movies.

Just none in a similar genre to GL or where she plays a character like Carol.


However, we don't know what the final script's version of Carol is like. It could be very different from the comics.

ultimatefan
01-09-2010, 08:26 AM
Before people scream bloody murder and chainsaw their own heads off, let´s not just judge the girl for frikking Gossip Girl. She apparantly has better edgier stuff coming out, and nobody would say Michelle Williams would get nominated for an Oscar when she was doing Dawson´x Creek.

Of course she can also turn out to be another Katie Holmes, but let´s wait and see. At least she doesn´t look like she´s 16.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 08:27 AM
Ehh she doesn't look much older than 16.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 08:34 AM
She looks older in pictures.. but

She comes off really young onscreen, in interviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHwjPKIH5c

and onscreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZTraSFijA8

darkseid26
01-09-2010, 08:34 AM
Disappointed in the casting, but will see how this goes.

ultimatefan
01-09-2010, 08:41 AM
She looks older in pictures.. but

She comes off really young onscreen, in interviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHwjPKIH5c

and onscreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZTraSFijA8

She doesn´t come off as girly as Katie Holmes or Kate Bosworth IMO.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 08:56 AM
Ok let's see,

WB cast Katie Holmes as an Assistant District Attorney and pretty much the right hand person to the actual DA of one of the largest cities in the world

Kate Bosworth as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was also old enough to have a 5-6 year old kid after she had become a famous reporter

And now a 23 year old Gossip Girl as head of a major aerospace firm.

Are we seeing a pattern here?:cwink:

Green Ghost
01-09-2010, 09:00 AM
Ok let's see,

WB cast Katie Holmes as an Assistant District Attorney and pretty much the right hand person to the actual DA of one of the largest cities in the world

Keri Russel as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was also old enough to have a 5-6 year old kid after she had become a famous reporter

And now a 23 year old Gossip Girl as head of a major aerospace firm.

Are we seeing a pattern here?:cwink:

I think you mean Kate Bosworth :cwink:

But you are right...don't know why they cast the female parts so young...

kedrell
01-09-2010, 09:01 AM
:doh: D'Oh! You're right, my bad.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 09:02 AM
Yes. It stinks of WB casting them because they are young and have an in built fan base, which WB obviously hope will transfer over to the movie.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 09:06 AM
But you are right...don't know why they cast the female parts so young...

Marketability and sex appeal.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 09:09 AM
Yet they went the other way with TDK and look how that turned out. Acting trumps sex appeal anyday.

Young Superman
01-09-2010, 09:10 AM
Ok let's see,

WB cast Katie Holmes as an Assistant District Attorney and pretty much the right hand person to the actual DA of one of the largest cities in the world

Kate Bosworth as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was also old enough to have a 5-6 year old kid after she had become a famous reporter

And now a 23 year old Gossip Girl as head of a major aerospace firm.

Are we seeing a pattern here?:cwink: Yup and it's sad:csad:

terry78
01-09-2010, 09:13 AM
Well, you can't fault Favs for casting Paltrow, who is actually an accomplished actress. I assume this is just a WB thang.

Crook
01-09-2010, 09:35 AM
I want this thread upped on the chance Blake actually does well in the role.

baerrtt
01-09-2010, 09:42 AM
Before people scream bloody murder and chainsaw their own heads off, let´s not just judge the girl for frikking Gossip Girl. She apparantly has better edgier stuff coming out, and nobody would say Michelle Williams would get nominated for an Oscar when she was doing Dawson´x Creek.

Of course she can also turn out to be another Katie Holmes, but let´s wait and see. At least she doesn´t look like she´s 16.

No comparison as Williams was actually noted for giving credible, mature performances when she was on that show.

dnno1
01-09-2010, 09:44 AM
So, you're saying that you would rely on those who have been in the film business for "over a hundred years" (which would only really happen if people actually sold their souls to the devil to live that long) and their casting choices, and yet you're using an award that is chosen by screaming and hormonal children who have absolutely no experience in the movie industry and only choose the nominees and winners based on who is "hottest" or "sexiest" or the "in thing" at the moment and who's opinions are worth exactly the same as the "anonymous poster" you're complaining about? I think you might want to rethink your argument.

Yes, it's not like they were born yesterday and, if you would notice they are making a lot of money producing films. A lot more than your opinion. They know what they are doing as to why they are still in business. Two years from now you will be singing a different song about Blake Lively. As far as the Teen Choice Awards, it's better than some unfounded and opinionated statemen that "most people didn't like Kate Bosworth's acting in Superman Returns". At leastt the noimination gives some indication that people did. I am still waiting for proof otherwise and it hasn't come yet.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 09:44 AM
Hey, she could end up defying the odds and being great. But there isn't anything to suggest that right now.

terry78
01-09-2010, 09:47 AM
As long as she doesn't talk with that constantly pursed pucker like on the show, I'm fine.

dnno1
01-09-2010, 09:50 AM
Wow. Now show me an actually credible reviewer. That's clearly putting a positive spin on things and isn't even a proper review but more of a mini autobiography about Bosworth.

Actually I don't have to show anyting more. The burden of proof is ony you. I have asked you to justify your statement and all you have come up with is excuses.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 09:51 AM
Yes, it's not like they were born yesterday and, if you would notice they are making a lot of money producing films. A lot more than your opinion. They know what they are doing as to why they are still in business. Two years from now you will be singing a different song about Blake Lively. As far as the Teen Choice Awards, it's better than some unfounded and opinionated statemen that "most people didn't like Kate Bosworth's acting in Superman Returns". At leastt the noimination gives some indication that people did. I am still waiting for proof otherwise and it hasn't come yet.

Seriously, bringing Teen Choice Awards into an argument isn't gonna do you any favours.

Kate Bosworth stank in Superman Returns. Superman Returns stank. End of.

dnno1
01-09-2010, 10:01 AM
She was nominated for a Razzie

2007 (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Razzie_Awards/2007)Nominated Razzie Award Worst Supporting Actress
for: Superman Returns (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/) (2006)

That says alot. The Razzies usually only nominate actors or actresses that got panned by critics for their terrible performances in films.

Clearly the voice of upwards of 80 million votes (from the Teen Choice Awards) speak louder than the 650 from The Golden Rasberrys. That is insignificant. Is that all you got?

dnno1
01-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Seriously, bringing Teen Choice Awards into an argument isn't gonna do you any favours.

Kate Bosworth stank in Superman Returns. Superman Returns stank. End of.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ursa
01-09-2010, 10:10 AM
I'm disappointed.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 10:12 AM
Not about Bosworth it ain't. She was crap and totally wrong for Lois Lane.

As for Superman Returns being crap? Yea that's opinion, but...

If you are happy with a big budget modern day Superman film to contain...

Supes catching a plane. Supes catching a car with shot brakes. Supes lifting... wait for it... wait for it... a ****ing KRYPTONITE mountain. Supes stalking/spying on Lois. Clark Kent acting like a douche to her new boyfriend.

Then well... whatever.

I'm not even a big Superman fan but the prospect of a big budget modern Superman movie had my mouth watering. And we got that? :dry:

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Clearly the voice of upwards of 80 million votes (from the Teen Choice Awards) speak louder than the 650 from The Golden Rasberrys. That is insignificant. Is that all you got?

Yes but are the Teen Choice Awards really worth paying attention to? Errr... no, they are not. They hold about as much real credibility as a blind man who says he saw Jesus.

Seriously bringing the TCA into a discussion defending someone is totally the wrong way to go.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 10:26 AM
lol did anyone see the TMT article on the casting
http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2010/1/9/blake-lively-is-carol-ferris.html

terry78
01-09-2010, 10:29 AM
No words?

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:35 AM
Yet they went the other way with TDK and look how that turned out. Acting trumps sex appeal anyday.

Oh I disagree.

I don't think Gylenhaal contributed to TDK's success.


She was serviceable in the role for sure; not great, but not horrible, but she certainly didn't draw anyone in with her looks... or lack of, and was nowhere near the type of women Bruce Wayne always falls for.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:38 AM
What's amusing about the Bosworth situation is, a year after Superman Returns came out, she was immediately let out of her contract and given her walking papers by WB.

If they were ever going to do a sequel, she wasn't going to be invited back to play Lois.


Yet now again, WB signs off on someone very similar to Kate for this GL role. However, the main difference being Carol isn't an older established character with a child.. so it will be a lot easier for Blake to be believeable as Carol than Bosworth as Lois.

baerrtt
01-09-2010, 10:39 AM
Oh I disagree.

I don't think Gylenhaal contributed to TDK's success.


She was serviceable in the role for sure; not great, but not horrible, but she certainly didn't draw anyone in with her looks... or lack of, and was nowhere near the type of women Bruce Wayne always falls for.

You're right in that Gylenhall didn't stand out but the overall ensemble cast was an unusual one and the respect/perception of TDK as a 'grown-up' and realistic superhero movie wasn't hurt by having the love interest played by someone who looks more real than the usual parade of Hollywood hotties.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:44 AM
What's so amusing is how we went from Rose Byrne ..... to Blake Lively in the end

What a major dichotomy..

It kinda gives you some insight into how the studio/suit mentality works at Warner Bros.

Crook
01-09-2010, 10:45 AM
You're right in that Gylenhall didn't stand out but the overall ensemble cast was an unusual one and the respect/perception of TDK as a 'grown-up' and realistic superhero movie wasn't hurt by having the love interest played by someone who looks more real than the usual parade of Hollywood hotties.
Looks "more real"? I'm sorry, but what exactly does that even mean? :funny:

Watson
01-09-2010, 10:46 AM
Oh I disagree.

I don't think Gylenhaal contributed to TDK's success.


She was serviceable in the role for sure; not great, but not horrible, but she certainly didn't draw anyone in with her looks... or lack of, and was nowhere near the type of women Bruce Wayne always falls for.

I always thought that was a bit of the point of Dawes. She was different from the type of women Bruce has liked because he liked her for different reasons. And I liked Gyllenhal. To me that was appropriate casting. I could see her having actually put in the time to go to school, then law school, then the bar exam.

terry78
01-09-2010, 10:47 AM
Looks "more real"? I'm sorry, but what exactly does that even mean? :funny:

Like that Simpsons ep. where Moe tries out for the soap.

"You said gritty, by which you mean ugly."

"I meant Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island ugly, not Cornelious from Planet of the Apes ugly. "TV" ugly, not "ugly" ugly."

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:48 AM
You're right in that Gylenhall didn't stand out but the overall ensemble cast was an unusual one and the respect/perception of TDK as a 'grown-up' and realistic superhero movie wasn't hurt by having the love interest played by someone who looks more real than the usual parade of Hollywood hotties.

Of course it wasn't hurt. It was written well, and the written portrayal was the strongest part of the character.

But that being said, it didn't exactly help that she wasn't attractive.

Personally I don't think attractiveness is necessary for films like these, but I'm sure the studio pushes for the young female sex appeal and marketability.

I mean the only reason Nolan got away with Gylenhall in TDK was that WB pretty much gave him complete freedom for TDK without studio interference after he proved himself with BB. WB became his biotch.


I'm pretty sure Katie Holmes, on the contrary, was very much an 'in-house' studio-driven WB name.


As is Lively.

Kate Bosworth was on the WB's radar pretty tightly and Kevin Spacey ultimately pushed Singer into casting her.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 10:50 AM
What's so amusing is how we went from Rose Byrne ..... to Blake Lively in the end

What a major dichotomy..

It kinda gives you some insight into how the studio/suit mentality works at Warner Bros.
TO me its kind of how they went from Sam Worthington and Shawn Roberts...2 upcoming stars to Ryan Reynolds and Justin Timberlake.

IT just makes me seem like they have no faith in their non Batman, Superman projects.

Marvel seems to be on the ball with their casting

I still have hope for GL though

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:54 AM
I wouldn't mind Reynolds.

My biggest issue with him is the Deadpool project. Deadpool has the potential to be a VERY loved character by audiences, very entertaining; moreso than Hal Jordan.

I'm worried Ryan will get marked as Deadpool to the GA when the film becomes popular, and Green Lantern will just be secondary.


I would have rather we had someone completely new to the superhero genre for GL than getting the sloppy seconds from what could be Marvel's breakout star.


It just seems super lazy and safe on WB's part.

Crook
01-09-2010, 10:55 AM
Like that Simpsons ep. where Moe tries out for the soap.

"You said gritty, by which you mean ugly."

"I meant Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island ugly, not Cornelious from Planet of the Apes ugly. "TV" ugly, not "ugly" ugly."
I suspected as such. It's a stupid critique to have as I'm sure they wouldn't apply the same standards for the male counterparts. Keaton comes to mind.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 10:59 AM
I suspected as such. It's a stupid critique to have as I'm sure they wouldn't apply the same standards for the male counterparts. Keaton comes to mind.

Women and Men are very different in Hollywood, different standards, even by a societal perspective.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.


That being said, Keaton was a good looking dude. The main concern from fans was he lacked the imposing superhero physique and he was known for his comedic roles.

terry78
01-09-2010, 11:00 AM
Keaton in the Batman guise was honestly the scariest Batman onscreen ever though. Especially in Returns. You would honestly be scared ****less if you saw him. He kept doing that wild eyed thing behind the mask.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:03 AM
Keaton in the Batman guise was honestly the scariest Batman onscreen ever though. Especially in Returns. You would honestly be scared ****less if you saw him. He kept doing that wild eyed thing behind the mask.

Agreed. He was a better Batman than Bale, despite the shortcomings of the 1990s and Tim Burton's departure from source material.

The suit looked amazing.

He didn't have to change his voice to sound ridiculous.

And he was the only Batman who smiled... and when he did, you knew you should be terrified about what's to come.

Crook
01-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Women and Men are very different in Hollywood, different standards, even by a societal perspective.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.
I'm not talking about Hollywood, I'm talking about translating the appearances of comic book characters. Which leads to...

That being said, Keaton was a good looking dude. The main concern from fans was he lacked the imposing superhero physique and he was known for his comedic roles.
Lacked the archetypical superhero physique. Even though anyone with good sense knows that a great portion of athletic martial artists resemble Keaton's build.

I'm personally for adapting as close to the look of the comics. That includes the "idealized" beauty depicted males AND females. I want my superhero to look fit and handsome, and I want his love interests to look gorgeous. Reality could kiss my ass when it comes to this.

Specter313
01-09-2010, 11:08 AM
Yes, it's not like they were born yesterday and, if you would notice they are making a lot of money producing films. A lot more than your opinion. They know what they are doing as to why they are still in business. Two years from now you will be singing a different song about Blake Lively. As far as the Teen Choice Awards, it's better than some unfounded and opinionated statemen that "most people didn't like Kate Bosworth's acting in Superman Returns". At leastt the noimination gives some indication that people did. I am still waiting for proof otherwise and it hasn't come yet.

Did you even fully read what I said or just look at what you could argue against? I said that you say to trust producers who have been in the business, BUT you're using an award selected by people who have NEVER been in the business and are chosen by children for the most superficial reasons. In other words, one doesn't go with the other. You're using the two extremes and you shoot your own argument in the foot by trying to tie the two together. Especially when you say that someone's opinion on here doesn't matter to you when that person's opinion has the exact same value as those who vote for that award.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:12 AM
Well there's a huge divergence between what you personally want Crook... and Hollywood, the studios and society in general.

But again, the Keaton comparison is pretty moot. It was a different situation and a different time when the genre of gritty and serious (comic accurate) superhero films was still young.

Lunar_Wolf
01-09-2010, 11:14 AM
Hmmmmm a little to young, but I've never seen this girl act, so who knows.

Crook
01-09-2010, 11:17 AM
Well there's a huge divergence between what you personally want Crook... and Hollywood, the studios and society in general.

But again, the Keaton comparison is pretty moot. It was a different situation and a different time when the genre of gritty and serious (comic accurate) superhero films was still young.
I'm not sure what you mean. By all indications, what the studios want and they superficial requirements for adaptation are very well in sync. Generally speaking, it's been followed pretty closely.

Lunar_Wolf
01-09-2010, 11:19 AM
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff104/robertwolf/CarolFerrisPNG.png http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff104/robertwolf/blake-lively2.jpg

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 11:22 AM
Oh, Christ, I do not like this choice AT ALL. It's going to take alot to ****ing convince me about this. She was clearly chosen lilke Holmes was for BB. Shame WB. God, just looking at her now makes me pissed off. To me she just looks like the new hot thing that won't last in five years.

Specter313
01-09-2010, 11:23 AM
Patrow and Liv Tyler are great in other roles, but their performances in their respective superhero movies weren't memorable in the slightest.


I don't think necessarily having established proven big names always helps.

I have to disagree, IMO. Tyler had much more needed chemistry with Norton than Conolly did with Bana, which was important to the characters. And I personally think that Paltrow made Pepper memorable when the character could have floundered with a lesser actress. She had several memorable scenes, the "taking out the trash" and switching the battery scenes come to mind, because of her delivery.

Oh I disagree.

I don't think Gylenhaal contributed to TDK's success.


She was serviceable in the role for sure; not great, but not horrible, but she certainly didn't draw anyone in with her looks... or lack of, and was nowhere near the type of women Bruce Wayne always falls for.

Gyllenhaal may not have contributed to the overall success of TDK, but she helped make the fans care more about Rachel. Think about it, between the time before BB and up to TDK came out, Katie Holmes had become a bit of a national joke and was hard to take serious with all the craziness surrounding her marriage to Cruise. I will bet you 10 to 1 odds that if it was Katie strapped to that chair, there is a very good chance that some of the rabid fanboys would have actually cheered and laughed when she got blown to bits, which I guarentee is not the reaction that Nolan wanted from the audience. Gyllenhaal made the character more likeable and down to earth to the audience, so that you cared about Rachel's death and made the Joker seem that much more dangerous.

Matt
01-09-2010, 11:26 AM
I've never seen her act, so I do not have much to say about this.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. By all indications, what the studios want and they superficial requirements for adaptation are very well in sync. Generally speaking, it's been followed pretty closely.

I was talking about difference between men and women in Hollywood, and why much younger actresses like Blake are valued pretty highly by the studio suits for roles like these.

And there is a strong emphasis placed on female looks, much moreso than for men, but that's also a societal thing.

But I suppose that's going off on a tanget.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:32 AM
Gyllenhaal may not have contributed to the overall success of TDK, but she helped make the fans care more about Rachel. Think about it, between the time before BB and up to TDK came out, Katie Holmes had become a bit of a national joke and was hard to take serious with all the craziness surrounding her marriage to Cruise. I will bet you 10 to 1 odds that if it was Katie strapped to that chair, there is a very good chance that some of the rabid fanboys would have actually cheered and laughed when she got blown to bits, which I guarentee is not the reaction that Nolan wanted from the audience. Gyllenhaal made the character more likeable and down to earth to the audience, so that you cared about Rachel's death and made the Joker seem that much more dangerous.

The thing is Gylenhaal's unattractiveness didn't contribute any of that. There are plenty of attractive, and much more talented actresses, who could have accomplished the same thing.

She was serviceable. She didn't stand out, perhaps the weakest link in that amazing cast. But her serviceability in the role doesnt mean there aren't actresses with the look component that could have done much better.


But I suppose it was an interesting change from what the studios usually go for. Makes me wonder who Nolan will cast as the female lead in Batman III. The studio is still bending over backwards for him.

OptimusPrime114
01-09-2010, 11:34 AM
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff104/robertwolf/CarolFerrisPNG.png http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff104/robertwolf/blake-lively2.jpg

I understand now. I do see somewhat of a resemblance.

Matt
01-09-2010, 11:34 AM
I trust this casting. Like I said, I've never seen Blake Lively in anything, but Martin Campell has a good eye for casting. Even in his weaker movies, his cast choices are always dead on.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 11:38 AM
I wouldn't mind Reynolds.

My biggest issue with him is the Deadpool project. Deadpool has the potential to be a VERY loved character by audiences, very entertaining; moreso than Hal Jordan.

I'm worried Ryan will get marked as Deadpool to the GA when the film becomes popular, and Green Lantern will just be secondary.


I would have rather we had someone completely new to the superhero genre for GL than getting the sloppy seconds from what could be Marvel's breakout star.


It just seems super lazy and safe on WB's part.
I think its going to be the other way around. GL is coming out first. Bigger budget and all that. Deadpool I think is going to be secondary.

But I was just saying Shawn Roberts, Sam Worthington, and Rose Byrne all these up and coming actors and then the end results were these 3 big GA people like Reynolds, Timberlake, and Lively

I was agreeing with you

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:38 AM
I understand now. I do see somewhat of a resemblance.


I see absolutely zero resemblance to be honest. I don't think she was cast based on resemblance to the comics.

There are other obvious factors in play.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 11:39 AM
I gotta go with Ace on this. Yes, Campbell has a great track record for female leads, who's to say he even cast her? She seems like a studio decision to me. If it's true, it just further proves WB doesn't have alot of confidence in their non Batman properties. They should of learned this with BB.

If she's good I'll say I was wrong and everything. But right now I don't think she will be. It's all up to Campbell to save this.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:41 AM
I think its going to be the other way around. GL is coming out first. Bigger budget and all that. Deadpool I think is going to be secondary.

I hope.

Sometimes budget doesnt necessary mean success with general audiences.

Deadpool just seems like the type of character, if done properly, could be HUGE for general audiences. He's incredibly entertaining and seems a perfect fit with Reynolds' acting style.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 11:42 AM
Yea if she turns out good I ain't one to not hold my hands up.

But yea, I think it was a studio decision. She's got an in built fan base, which WB will obviously hope transfer over to this movie. I think that was the main reason of her casting.

OptimusPrime114
01-09-2010, 11:42 AM
I see absolutely zero resemblance to be honest. I don't think she was cast based on resemblance to the comics.

There are other obvious factors in play.

I know.

I just thought Blake had Carol's eyes. Just sayin'

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 11:42 AM
I think its going to be the other way around. GL is coming out first. Bigger budget and all that. Deadpool I think is going to be secondary.

But I was just saying Shawn Roberts, Sam Worthington, and Rose Byrne all these up and coming actors and then the end results were these 3 big GA people like Reynolds, Timberlake, and Lively

I was agreeing with you

Deadpool is more akin to Zombieland (cult) where as Green Lantern is more in the liking of Avatar. (mainstream). So I don't know if people would like "Hey that's there them Deadpool in Green Lantern the movie! lolz"

You have to remember that I don't think Shawn or Sam were in the running; maybe considered. Michael Fassbasser was in the running and was my fav for Hal.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 11:43 AM
Deadpool could og either way. He could end up like Watchmen and nobody will understand it. Or he could be a hit with the GA.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 11:45 AM
Ehh I think people will be able to distinguish between Hal and Pool. And find them cool characters in their own ways.

GL is the "big" gig for Reynolds. Deadpool is a passion project. He's been wanting to play him for 8 frickin years. But, he would of been stupid to turn down GL.

As for GA reaction? It depends. If there is a super hero burnout in GA's then Deadpool could be pretty big, seeing as he's the sorta character to actually go "I know right? ANOTHER super hero movie!?!" and satirized the comic book movie industry.

But at the end of the day, GL is a space saga. People love that kinda ****, if done well.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 11:47 AM
If Deadpool is anything like Zombieland I shall be a happy camper

kedrell
01-09-2010, 11:52 AM
We've also forgot that WB also cast Malin Ackerman in Watchmen. Damn, what is it with WB and how they cast their female leads in comic book movies?

IDrawDeadPeople
01-09-2010, 11:53 AM
I have never seen this woman act in anything, and although I do have my own personal stigmas attached to the show "Gossip Girl", I am positive about this choice.

Insomuch as I believe she has at least some acting ability (keeping in mind that casting directors hire her over other potential actresses), the approach to this working out would be as follows:

If she can act even a little, good for her. If Martin Campbell can direct actors worth a darn, then good for us. He'll draw the performance out of her, more than I trust her to deliver on her own.

We, as the fanbase, are in good hands when it comes to delivering the performance... those being the director's, rather than the actress'.

On a plus, her age aside, some of the pics I've seen of her really show an ability to look somewhat older than her age. She does have a slight maturity to her face when she wants to.

I'm not too thrown off by her being cast.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 11:57 AM
Yea but can we be sure the directors cast her? Or the studio because she is hot property, is pretty and has an in built fan base that will transfer over to this movie putting more bums in seats?

That's what I fear.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 11:57 AM
I don't think Martin Campbell has as much control on this project that everyone thinks he does...

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 11:58 AM
I don't think Martin Campbell has as much control on this project that everyone thinks he does...

Agreed. ****, we don't even know if Reynolds was Campbell's choice.

IDrawDeadPeople
01-09-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm talking about Campbell's ability to direct the performances. Not whether he gets to choose the food at craft services or is doing the cgi effects from his pc at home.

Any director worth their wages literally directs the acting.

My faith is in his ability to direct the acting more than it is in anyone who might be cast in this film, Oscar-worthy star, or not.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Ryan was a compromise between the studio, Campbell and De Line/Bertlani from what I heard.

Basically he was a studio-driven decision. I guess they felt he could bring in the most Green for Green Lantern.

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:02 PM
WB aren't Fox, they don't take much control over production. They're probably the most generous of the big studios towards their directors. And when Campbell is coming off from rebooting a famous pop icon (which he already did to success once before), it's highly doubtful they're forcing his hand on anything. I see compromises at worst, but more or less Campbell's operating his film.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:03 PM
No matter how good a director is, if the actor/actress has no or very little talent, or just doesn't connect with the director, the performance will be crap.

And some "in thing" actress from some crap TV show that wasn't the directors choice doesn't instill confidence. Even if it was Spielberg or frickin Francis Ford Coppola directing.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:05 PM
WB aren't Fox, they don't take much control over production. They're probably the most generous of the big studios towards their directors. And when Campbell is coming off from rebooting a famous pop icon (which he already did to success once before), it's highly doubtful they're forcing his hand on anything. I see compromises at worst, but more or less Campbell's operating his film.

Tell that to Bryan Singer, who with X-Men basically brought comic book movies back from the dead.

Then had teh Bosworth forced on him.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 12:09 PM
WB aren't Fox, they don't take much control over production. They're probably the most generous of the big studios towards their directors. And when Campbell is coming off from rebooting a famous pop icon (which he already did to success once before), it's highly doubtful they're forcing his hand on anything. I see compromises at worst, but more or less Campbell's operating his film.


After Superman Returns, WB definitely decided to take a much more controlling and 'safer' approach to these 200mil superhero flicks; with the exception of TDK where Nolan proved himself prior and the studio had faith.

Justice League:Mortal was completely studio-driven. George Miller was in the same position Campbell is now. WB wanted a director they could manage.

The recent attempts to 'reboot' Superman after Returns before the lawsuit kicked in was studio-driven too. The director would be very much controlled by what the studio wants.


This is all because they gave Bryan Singer complete control for Superman and supposedly lay the blame of the film's disapointment solely on him. It's a typical suit move.


So far every development on the Green Lantern project appears very obviously studio-driven. This definitely doesn't sound like a project where Campbell is trying to exercise his artistic vision for GL; like Nolan and Burton to their respective Batmans.

FlawlessVictory
01-09-2010, 12:09 PM
I was hoping for Kerri but I'll give Lively a shot.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Lively is a good actress and Gossip Girl is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Give it a try. There has been weirder choices before (Heath Ledger, anyone) and it turned out fine.

FlawlessVictory
01-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Tell that to Bryan Singer, who with X-Men basically brought comic book movies back from the dead.

Then had teh Bosworth forced on him.

Bosworth was never "forced" on him by the studio, she was a Spacey suggestion.

Man of Tomorrow
01-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Bosworth was never "forced" on him by the studio, she was a Spacey suggestion.

Yep. Singer had complete control on SR.

Bosworth was already on the studio's radar and then Spacey 'recommended' her, despite Bryan wanting Keri Russell.

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:15 PM
After Superman Returns, WB definitely decided to take a much more controlling and 'safer' approach to these 200mil superhero flicks; with the exception of TDK where Nolan proved himself prior and the studio had faith.
Tell that to Snyder.

So far every development on the Green Lantern project appears very obviously studio-driven. This definitely doesn't sound like a project where Campbell is trying to exercise his artistic vision for GL; like Nolan and Burton to their respective Batmans.
What have you actually heard about this project? There's very little out there. I know Reynolds has spoken highly of what Campbell has planned in terms of visuals and scope. And if there's a director with experience in bringing a character to mainstream audiences, it's him. Campbell isn't really the type to be a studio rat, so I see no reason for him to willingly sign onto a project that will give him little control.

IDrawDeadPeople
01-09-2010, 12:17 PM
Why is it, that when it comes to genre films, as soon as a "least likely" candidate is cast in the production, somehow the competency of the entire production team comes into question? Just because Lively was cast doesn't mean that the art directors all went color blind after Lord of the Rings.

Just because I would have preferred someone else, and dislike the show Gossip Girl, doesn't mean the cinematographer suddenly has a habit of leaving the lens cap on during filming. :whatever:

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:19 PM
It's nothing to do with "least likely". People are questioning the motives of casting a untested TV actress. It stinks of a studio casting because Gossip Girl has a large fan base that will transfer to this movie and a good looking young actress.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:21 PM
Damm, yesterday everybody was in love with this movie and, one casting choice some people don't agree with, this is going to be a failure of Superman Returns proportions? :doh: :hehe:

As I said in other threads, Lively is a good actress and Gossip Girl is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. I think she'll do great. Give it a try, guys! :woot:

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm willing to keep an open mind. But I'm still incredibly disappointed and suspicious of this casting choice.

Why skip over proven actresses for a hot right now TV starlet?

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:24 PM
I don't think that anyone is saying this casting choice automatically means that GL will be a mess of Superman Returns proportions. But it is a cause for concern especially with WB's proven track record on female leads in superhero films.

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Damm, yesterday everybody was in love with this movie and, one casting choice some people don't agree with, this is going to be a failure of Superman Returns proportions? :doh: :hehe:
Fanboy loyalty is only as strong as the last piece of news, it seems.

As I said in other threads, Lively is a good actress and Gossip Girl is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. I think she'll do great. Give it a try, guys! :woot:Man, what I'd give to have that opportunity.. :awesome:


Why skip over proven actresses for a hot right now TV starlet?
Why not wait until the movie, or when Campbell and the producers comment on it?

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:26 PM
One thing in her favor:

She's way hotter than either Bosworth or Holmes ever were. I'd say she's about equal with Ackerman in the looks dept.

FlawlessVictory
01-09-2010, 12:27 PM
And for those who are raving about Marvel's casting in their superheroes compared to WB/DC lets keep a few things in mind:

1. We have a virtual unknown in the title role of Thor whose acting background is primarily based in tv(something some people are complaining about with Lively). People are now willing to give him a shot, the same should be said for Lively, plus she won't be carrying the film like Hemsworth.

2. We have yet to see who is Captain America.

3. It was Nolan's Batman Begins that really set the standard with the way superhero movies are cast now which Favreau himself has pointed to on different occasions.

4. IIRC, there were quite a few people who were originally very much against the RDJ casting.

5. Lets not forget WB casting actors such as Hackman and Brando in the first superhero blockbuster.

6. WB allowing Burton to proceed with Keaton, who to this day remains a favorite to many as Batman, when they could have easily "forced" Burton to go with someone else.

I can understand the concern over Lively, but lets give this production a shot, there are some very talented people behind it. Plus, there is still plenty of more casting to go through.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:29 PM
I'm not being funny but no one is gonna come out and go "Yea she wasn't our choice, the studio picked her". They gonna spin it positive no matter what.

I just don't see how the likes of Monaghan, who I think is literally PERFECT for the role gets skipped over. Especially for some actress from a TV show.

Actually I do, I've already mentioned it. In built fan base that will check her out in this movie, putting bums in seats.

And the thing with Hemsworth and Thor? We actually KNOW Branagh himself picked him. So he must of done special in the auditions.

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 12:29 PM
i do have to say that at least WB isn't like Fox..or how Sony is with Spider-Man 3 and 4..

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:29 PM
Man, what I'd give to have that opportunity.. :awesome:
I see what you did there. :awesome:

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 12:31 PM
I'm not being funny but no one is gonna come out and go "Yea she wasn't our choice, the studio picked her". They gonna spin it positive no matter what.

I just don't see how the likes of Monaghan, who I think is literally PERFECT for the role gets skipped over. Especially for some actress from a TV show.

Actually I do, I've already mentioned it. In built fan base that will check her out in this movie, putting bums in seats.

Image if it was Campbell himself who pushed for Blake. It's hard to image but what if..

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Image if it was Campbell himself who pushed for Blake. It's hard to image but what if..

If he did then no worries.

But honestly, for me it seems more likely she was a studio choice.

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 12:34 PM
I mean, look at the cast for JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Prior to the release, people were b*tching and moaning about it, and in the end, it worked out. In fact, I think they surpass expectations with some.

Even look at Iron Man 1's cast; besides Robert Downey Jr, it wasn't that clever of a cast. Not to say that they were not talented, because they all are, but on paper, it was hard to image how they would work out on the big screen..prior to the release.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:35 PM
Yea but we knew Heath Ledger was supremely talented. The ? over his casting was if he'd be believable as a nut case like Joker.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:36 PM
I just don't see how the likes of Monaghan, who I think is literally PERFECT for the role gets skipped over. Especially for some actress from a TV show.
:dry:

Dude, you haven't seen her screen test. You can't tell if she's better of worse than ANY other actress rumored. Only because she was the least likeable to get the role by OUR standarts, she's bad? Does. Not. Compute. Also, being a TV actor is in any ways as degrading as you make it out to be with your statements.

And the thing with Hemsworth and Thor? We actually KNOW Branagh himself picked him. So he must of done special in the auditions.
How do you know? Hemsworth "blew the director away with a screen test" as much as Lively did, and everyone know Campbell is as authoral as Bragnah about putting a cast together.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:36 PM
I wouldn't bring up ancient history like the STM or B'89 casting. Hell, back in those days FOX was still a great studio. Let's focus more on the present. This is the 4th time WB has done this since 2005(meaning the way they cast female leads in superhero films). It's a legit criticism. Now I'm not going to be saying this movie is doomed or anything like that just because of this(BB was great despite Holmes) but I do wonder how this is going to end up in this spectrum of modern DC films that have casted the same way:


Highest: Batman Begins
-
-
-
-
-
Middle: Watchmen
-
-
-
-
-
Lowest: Superman Returns

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:38 PM
Because Branagh himself said so. Both him and Skarsgaard screen tested. Skarsgaard even tried on the Thor costume. But Hemsworth was picked.

Until Campbell comes out and says "It was entirely my choice" I'm gonna remain suspicious.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 12:38 PM
was I the only one who thought Holmes wasnt that bad acting wise in BB it was more how the character was written :ninja:

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 12:39 PM
I know we're dealing with a big time superhero movie, so the argument might be different, but let me bring this up:

Louis Letterier convinced the studio to change Clash of the Titans from a green screen '300' type movie to a locations shoot. I don't know how WB is that controllng. The only time when I've heard that they were nervous about a project was with "Where the Wild Things Are' and even then, they left Spike Jonze alone in the long run.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Even Robert Downey Jr. was not well-receveid. I remember a guy who paintbrushed a moustache over one of his pictures and said "No. Does not work" and PEOPLE COMPLIED! Altough I must admit even I was a bit skeptical.

And for those who are saying "This is the same studio that picked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane": It's also the same studio who picked Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, Kim Bashinger as Vicky Vale, Michelle Pffeifer as Catwoman, Linda Carter as Wonder-Woman and etc.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:41 PM
But WB is notoriously unconfident when it comes to mainstream DC heroes in film. Anything other than Batman or Superman and they seem to get cold feet. And after what happened to Superman Returns and Watchmen, It wouldn't surprise me if they become more "hands on".

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Even Robert Downey Jr. was not well-receveid. I remember a guy who paintbrushed a moustache over one of his pictures and said "No. Does not work" and PEOPLE COMPLIED! Altough I must admit even I was a bit skeptical.

And for those who are saying "This is the same studio that picked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane": It's also the same studio who picked Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, Kim Bashinger as Vicky Vale, Michelle Pffeifer as Catwoman, Linda Carter as Wonder-Woman and etc.

Ancient history.

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:43 PM
I mean, look at the cast for JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Prior to the release, people were b*tching and moaning about it, and in the end, it worked out. In fact, I think they surpass expectations with so
Yeah, that's pretty noteworthy. He turned a bunch B and C-listers, into top dogs with that movie. Pretty amazing how far of a leap that whole cast made, and just goes to show you don't need to be an established star to shine. Especially when being directed by someone who's well-known for working well with their actors.

*cough*

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:43 PM
No, I'm pretty sure 80% of the complaints were "The teeny blooper of the rock'n'roll knight movie as the frickinn' Joker? DO NOT WANT!".

Octoberist
01-09-2010, 12:43 PM
hell, it was Kevin Spacey's influence that help cast Kate Bosworth, not so much the studio. Hell, WB even allowed a complete unknown to play Superman.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:44 PM
Superman Returns and Watchmen

*cough*

;)

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
hell, it was Kevin Spacey's influence that help cast Kate Bosworth, not so much the studio. Hell, WB even allowed a complete unknown to play Superman.

Yea, and look what happened. It didn't meet their expectations.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
It's just that we see a clear pattern here and it worries some fans.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
I say this. Someone dress up as Batman and interrogate Alan Horn about wtf is going on with all DC projects

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
Yea but we knew Heath Ledger was supremely talented. The ? over his casting was if he'd be believable as a nut case like Joker.
Bull***, fella. I should know, I was part of the majority who went NUTS over his casting news. Even though I was converted pretty early on, I still had to go out of my way to see Ledger's acting prowess. Even then, I wasn't exactly sure if he had the talent to pull it off.

FlawlessVictory
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
How do you know? Hemsworth "blew the director away with a screen test" as much as Lively did, and everyone know Campbell is as authoral as Bragnah about putting a cast together.

This is how it went down:

Chris had read for the part of Thor but wasn't given a test because a casting director had nixed him early on. I'm told Chris' younger brother Liam (who's also a ROAR client) then tested for the role of Thor, but Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige passed. Then, after a conversation with Ward ("You've got to reconsider Chris, he's your guy"), Feige decided to let Chris read again. And once Marvel put him on tape, it was "Oh my god". Branagh came to town last week and saw the Chris test and made the final casting decision today.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/exclusive-chris-hemsworth-is-thor/

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:45 PM
Ancient history.
And?

Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes; Erica Durance as Lois Lane; Dinah Meyer as Barbara Gordon...

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:47 PM
Superman Returns and Watchmen

*cough*

;)
Two bad choices out of 5 or more? WOW.

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:48 PM
Yea, and look what happened. It didn't meet their expectations.
So if the studio calls the shots, it's heresy. If the studio lets the director choose, it yields disappointing results. I've no clue what you want. :huh:

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:50 PM
No, I'm pretty sure 80% of the complaints were "The teeny blooper of the rock'n'roll knight movie as the frickinn' Joker? DO NOT WANT!".

Bull***, fella. I should know, I was part of the majority who went NUTS over his casting news. Even though I was converted pretty early on, I still had to go out of my way to see Ledger's acting prowess. Even then, I wasn't exactly sure if he had the talent to pull it off.

Yea, just like I said. Would he be believable as a completely evil nut case like Joker, a role completely different to his other roles.

If anyone questioned his actual acting ability then well, they're silly. After the likes of Brokeback, Monster's Ball, Lords of Dogtown and Candy.

The difference between his casting and Lively's is simple. Ledger was already PROVEN to have talent. Lively? Not so much.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:53 PM
Have you even seen any of her movies to say that?

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:53 PM
No...

The studio gave those two directors complete free reign, those movies disappointed. You don't think from then on the studio will be a bit more cautious and want to be more "hands on"? C'mon...

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:53 PM
Ah but the studio called the shot that hired Singer in the 1st place for SR. And THAT was their mistake. He was all wrong as it turns out for Superman.

protocida
01-09-2010, 12:54 PM
They were also cautious with Batman Begins and Nolan still choose the main cast by himself.

And I think Bryan Singer is a good director for Superman. His mistake was deciding to do a sequel/remake of Donner's Superman instead of starting a new cronology.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 12:56 PM
Definitely wasn't expecting Lively to get the role in the end. While I'm not entirely behind the choice, it's not a bad one either. Obviously Campbell sees something in her for Carol, so I'm willing to be optimistic with how she'll do. I've never see her act..ever. So I'm in a wait and see type mood, like with most superhero casting choices.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 12:57 PM
They were also cautious with Batman Begins and Nolan still choose the main cast by himself.

Batman Begins came out BEFORE Superman Returns and Watchmen. Batman Begins was critically acclaimed and an eventual hit on DVD. Batman Begins budget was NO WHERE NEAR Superman Returns and Watchmen. It was a low risk high reward property.

At that time WB obviously had a bit more confidence. It paid off with Begins. So they then gave Singer free reign, and it didn't pay off. They then gave Snyder free reign, it didn't pay off.

Nolan is their golden boy though now. He'll get free reign.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Even Robert Downey Jr. was not well-receveid. I remember a guy who paintbrushed a moustache over one of his pictures and said "No. Does not work" and PEOPLE COMPLIED! Altough I must admit even I was a bit skeptical.

And for those who are saying "This is the same studio that picked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane": It's also the same studio who picked Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, Kim Bashinger as Vicky Vale, Michelle Pffeifer as Catwoman, Linda Carter as Wonder-Woman and etc.

But those are looks. Which is typical of fanboy bashing. I didn't even know who RDJ was when he was first cast. Then I watched Zodiac and thought he was perfect.

I don't care if Lively is the spitting image of Ferris, I'm talking about acting. RDJ is a hell of an actor, which to this day I still don't understand the backlash for that casting.

Put RDJ or Ledger next to Lively. That may seem unfair, but I'm looking at acting and capability here. RDJ and Ledger and even Keaton were very much capable in their other roles and carried it to their comic book characters.

EDIT: Good God, she sounds like a 16 year old. And she's 23. It's too young. How am I going to take her seriously or buy her as a woman running an air force base while having smarts and confidence and manages to lock eyes with Hal and the people above her position?? It could be about as much as Katie Holmes as an assistant DA.

So the real question is, how capable will she be in this role?

Crook
01-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Can I ask you a question? And this isn't directed towards Lively, more of a general topic. How do you think actors establish themselves? They're either given that one defining role off the bat, or they impress the hell outta casting directors and build up a reputation over the years. Everyone starts somewhere. You don't prove yourself to anyone unless given the opportunity to do so.

THR have already gone on record to say she won the production team over with her screentest. She has a few films coming up that stray away from her teen-bopper image. To expect so much out of a 22 year old that's new in Hollywood is ridiculous. Do you know where Heath was at that same point? His biggest role was in '10 Things'. Yeah. Imagine giving that kid meaty roles.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 12:58 PM
And I think Bryan Singer is a good director for Superman. His mistake was deciding to do a sequel/remake of Donner's Superman instead of starting a new cronology.


That is prescisely why he was the wrong choice for Superman. Making a choice like that just shows poor judgement on his part from the very begining.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 12:59 PM
Bull***, fella. I should know, I was part of the majority who went NUTS over his casting news. Even though I was converted pretty early on, I still had to go out of my way to see Ledger's acting prowess. Even then, I wasn't exactly sure if he had the talent to pull it off.
LOL, I remember basically being the same. I still remember how packed the board was that day.

Micah12345
01-09-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm feeling more optimistic today. I'm really just glad they're FINALLY going through with a DC movie that isn't batman or superman.


And I know I'm in the tiny minority on this, but I liked bosworth as lois. Of course, I'm biased, considering she looks like my ex-girlfriend's twin. So I kind of projected my feelings for her onto bosworth, but whatevs.

Crook
01-09-2010, 01:02 PM
No...

The studio gave those two directors complete free reign, those movies disappointed. You don't think from then on the studio will be a bit more cautious and want to be more "hands on"? C'mon...
Can you actually name a WB film in recent years that was studio-controlled? And please don't put focus on the comic book genre...150-200 millions in dollars are the same value to the studio whether they're laced with superheroes or not.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:03 PM
Have you even seen any of her movies to say that?

She hasn't been in any movies yet. Not anything other than direct to dvd crap anyway.

Can I ask you a question? And this isn't directed towards Lively, more of a general topic. How do you think actors establish themselves? They're either given that one defining role off the bat, or they impress the hell outta casting directors and build up a reputation over the years. Everyone starts somewhere. You don't prove yourself to anyone unless given the opportunity to do so.

THR have already gone on record to say she won the production team over with her screentest. She has a few films coming up that stray away from her teen-bopper image. To expect so much out of a 22 year old that's new in Hollywood is ridiculous. Do you know where Heath was at that same point? His biggest role was in '10 Things'. Yeah. Imagine giving that kid meaty roles.

Thanks for proving my point.

Ledger's first big-ish role was in 10 Things. Lively first big-ish role is in a massive budget blockbuster super hero movie in a role where she must command respect and be believable as a business woman and air pilot...

It's like taking a baby, not giving them any arm bands, then throwing them in at the deep end.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 01:06 PM
But those are looks. Which is typical of fanboy bashing. I didn't even know who RDJ was when he was first cast. Then I watched Zodiac and thought he was perfect.

I don't care if Lively is the spitting image of Ferris, I'm talking about acting. RDJ is a hell of an actor, which to this day I still don't understand the backlash for that casting.

Put RDJ or Ledger next to Lively. That may seem unfair, but I'm looking at acting and capability here. RDJ and Ledger and even Keaton were very much capable in their other roles and carried it to their comic book characters.

EDIT: Good God, she sounds like a 16 year old. And she's 23. It's too young. How am I going to take her seriously or buy her as a woman running an air force base while having smarts and confidence and manages to lock eyes with Hal and the people above her position?? It could be about as much as Katie Holmes as an assistant DA.

So the real question is, how capable will she be in this role?
Confession: Iron Man was the first movie I ever saw RDJ in. The first time I ever heard about him was a joke on Family Guy. True story.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:06 PM
Can you actually name a WB film in recent years that was studio-controlled? And please don't put focus on the comic book genre...150-200 millions in dollars are the same value to the studio whether they're laced with superheroes or not.

Can you name me a big budget WB film after Watchmen? Watchmen and Superman Returns has surely, surely put a massive dent in their confidence.

And don't mention Clash coz that is a fantasy movie comparable to LOTR that features Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes.

And like I said, Nolan is their golden boy so they would let him do what he wants.

protocida
01-09-2010, 01:07 PM
She hasn't been in any movies yet. Not anything other than direct to dvd crap anyway.
Yes, she was.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Yea, just like I said. Would he be believable as a completely evil nut case like Joker, a role completely different to his other roles.

If anyone questioned his actual acting ability then well, they're silly. After the likes of Brokeback, Monster's Ball, Lords of Dogtown and Candy.

The difference between his casting and Lively's is simple. Ledger was already PROVEN to have talent. Lively? Not so much.

Agreed.

And she's 22 for God's sake. :dry: That is too damn young.

protocida
01-09-2010, 01:08 PM
Actors can look older, you know.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 01:10 PM
but she can still play like shes in high school.

Not a good look

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 01:11 PM
Confession: Iron Man was the first movie I ever saw RDJ in. The first time I ever heard about him was a joke on Family Guy. True story.

I don't blame you. We're pretty young and four years ago, I don't think as a 14 year old I would have ever hard of RDJ.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:11 PM
Yes, she was.


The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisterhood_of_the_Traveling_Pants_%28film%29) Bridget Vreeland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Vreeland) Lead role; film debut 2006 Accepted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accepted) Monica Moreland Supporting role Simon Says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Says_%28film%29) Jenny Minor role 2007 Elvis and Anabelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_and_Anabelle) Anabelle Leigh Lead role 2008 The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisterhood_of_the_Traveling_Pants_2) Bridget Vreeland Lead role; reprised role 2009 New York, I Love You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_I_Love_You) Gabrielle DiMarco Minor role The Private Lives of Pippa Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Lives_of_Pippa_Lee) Teenage Pippa Lee Supporting role

Yep that's a great resume...

Blackman
01-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Knaves whats your beef with TV actors in general. Because I also see you bring up the argument in the Cap threads too

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Actors can look older, you know.

It doesn't matter, it still doesn't change that she isn't older. She still looks like she's in high school.

epc11223
01-09-2010, 01:15 PM
i'd just like to point out to everyone that zoe saldana started out in the movie crossroads along side britney spears, and drumline with nick cannon; then went onto doing blockbusters like star trek and avatar. so maybe the casting people saw something that we have yet to see. you shouldn't judge until you see her performance, she just may shock you.



p.s. her hair color can easily be changed, shouldn't be that big a deal. sienna miller definitely had the look of the baroness (not basing her performance, solely on looks) and she's a natural blonde.

protocida
01-09-2010, 01:15 PM
Alright, Ace. I give up. I understand your point, but, for me, you're just being negative for the sake of being negative.

Moving on: I wonder how Star Shappire is going to come into play...

Lunar_Wolf
01-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Confession: Iron Man was the first movie I ever saw RDJ in. The first time I ever heard about him was a joke on Family Guy. True story.

You must be young?

baerrtt
01-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Campbell is a more than capable action director, especially when aided by a decent script, but let's get some perspective...he doesn't have a personal vision and quite frankly most of the decisions made creatively on GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE were in place before he was hired (tellingly Campbell initially thought Daniel Craig wouldn't work for the audience).

I'm not saying Lively will suck (or Reynolds for that matter) but there is nothing about the casting so far which reads as intriguing or daring.

Crook
01-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Thanks for proving my point.

Ledger's first big-ish role was in 10 Things. Lively first big-ish role is in a massive budget blockbuster super hero movie in a role where she must command respect and be believable as a business woman and air pilot...

It's like taking a baby, not giving them any arm bands, then throwing them in at the deep end.
Did you gloss over my first paragraph? There's two ways of proving yourself; baby steps or you take that giant leap from the start. This would be a case of the latter.

Need I remind you Bale's first role was to carry a STEVEN SPIELBERG movie? His balls hadn't even dropped yet, for god's sake. Depp starred in a Tim Burton movie when his biggest roles involved being a supporting castmate in teeny-bopper projects. Sean Penn drove straight into the gritty role of a violent delinquent in Bad Boys. What was his previous role? SPICOLI! I mean, christ, do I really need to get more extreme than that? Talk about beautiful resumes, eh?

This is NOT to say Blake will become an acting great amongst the likes of those three, but it accentuates the fact that being unproven means s**t. One right role and a little faith, can be the difference in the world from being low-rung to elite in a matter of one year.

If all casting involved was experience, eventually there'd be no actors at all.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Knaves whats your beef with TV actors in general. Because I also see you bring up the argument in the Cap threads too

I don't have a problem with TV actors.

I just have a problem when TV actors are thrown into MASSIVE roles in MASSIVE movies without any real experience in the movie world.

Like i said, it's like taking a baby, not giving them any arm bands, then throwing them into the deep end hoping they won't drown. It makes ZERO sense.

Dark Knight
01-09-2010, 01:20 PM
Lively huh?

Meh....an underwhelming choice, but whatever.

Lets just hope Campbell saw some good chemistry between her and Reynolds.

Lets also hope the casting choices for Sinestro and Hammond are much more.....ummm exciting.

Dark Knight
01-09-2010, 01:22 PM
Lively huh?

Meh....an underwhelming choice, but whatever.

Lets just hope Campbell saw some good chemistry between her and Reynolds.

Lets also hope the casting choices for Sinestro and Hammond are much more.....ummm exciting shall we say?

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:22 PM
Did you gloss over my first paragraph? There's two ways of proving yourself; baby steps or you take that giant leap from the start. This would be a case of the latter.

Need I remind you Bale's first role was to carry a STEVEN SPIELBERG movie? His balls hadn't even dropped yet, for god's sake. Depp starred in a Tim Burton movie when his biggest roles involved being a supporting castmate in teeny-bopper projects. Sean Penn drove straight into the gritty role of a violent delinquent in Bad Boys. What was his previous role? SPICOLI! I mean, christ, do I really need to get more extreme than that? Talk about beautiful resumes, eh?

This is NOT to say Blake will become an acting great amongst the likes of those three, but it accentuates the fact that being unproven means s**t. One right role and a little faith, can be the difference in the world from being low-rung to elite in a matter of one year.

If all casting involved was experience, eventually there'd be no actors at all.

Yea I understand that.

The thing is though, after seeing bits and pieces of Gossip Girl (god save me) I have literally ZERO confidence this girl has the ability to take that massive first leap which you talk about.

And BTW Depp was in Platoon, not really a teeny bopper movie ;)

And Spiccoli was ****ing awesome! :D

Blackman
01-09-2010, 01:24 PM
You must be young?
yeah I'm only turning 18 this month

Changeling
01-09-2010, 01:25 PM
hahahahah dude im only 15!!!

baerrtt
01-09-2010, 01:26 PM
And for those who are raving about Marvel's casting in their superheroes compared to WB/DC lets keep a few things in mind:

1. We have a virtual unknown in the title role of Thor whose acting background is primarily based in tv(something some people are complaining about with Lively). People are now willing to give him a shot, the same should be said for Lively, plus she won't be carrying the film like Hemsworth.

2. We have yet to see who is Captain America.

3. It was Nolan's Batman Begins that really set the standard with the way superhero movies are cast now which Favreau himself has pointed to on different occasions.

4. IIRC, there were quite a few people who were originally very much against the RDJ casting.

5. Lets not forget WB casting actors such as Hackman and Brando in the first superhero blockbuster.

6. WB allowing Burton to proceed with Keaton, who to this day remains a favorite to many as Batman, when they could have easily "forced" Burton to go with someone else.

I can understand the concern over Lively, but lets give this production a shot, there are some very talented people behind it. Plus, there is still plenty of more casting to go through.

Given that Bill Murray was on the list of choices back then I've always assumed that WB allowed Burton to proceed because Keaton had already established himself as a successful leading man. In comedies yes but this was an era where starpower was still relevant and I've always thought that if one of those totally wrong leading men WB pursued for Superman back in the late 70s (Newman, Redford, Bronson etc) had actually said yes Donner wouldn't have been given a choice in the matter.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 01:27 PM
edit.

Crook
01-09-2010, 01:28 PM
Of course you have no confidence. Confidence requires proof, faith doesn't. Before their defining roles, if all you had to go on with those previously mentioned actors were little projects or none at all...would you have faith in their "future" abilities? This is rhetorical, but I'm curious anyway.

Again, I feel I have to stress this point: do not judge an actor until they've been given ample time and material to (dis)prove their talents.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:31 PM
Yea but why risk an basically untested actress? The answer is obvious. She has an already built in fan base which equals $$$.

protocida
01-09-2010, 01:35 PM
Or maybe she actually showed to the director she can give in a good performance. I know talent is not the basis with which you hire an actor and that smaller actors NEVER EVER give good performances in big budget movies, but who knows, right?

Crook
01-09-2010, 01:35 PM
Why test someone unproven? The chance to be responsible for a breakout role, the foresight to see said actor's talents, a shot in the dark, etc etc. Take your pick. What does it matter if it yields a good result?

It's not like they picked a name out of a hat. She auditioned, and she reportedly impressed. Why ignore that?

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm not ignoring it. I just don't know if I believe it. Campbell himself hasn't come out and said "YES SHE AUDITIONED AND SHE WAS GREAT!" like Branagh did with Hemsworth.

Like I said earlier, if he does, I'll hold my hands up.

Chewy
01-09-2010, 01:43 PM
We haven't even known about this for a day

kedrell
01-09-2010, 01:45 PM
yeah I'm only turning 18 this month

hahahahah dude im only 15!!!

Wow! Lot of young people here. Forgive me but I never thought young people were still into comics. Always thought it was more to the interest of us old farts who grew up in the 20th century and can easily remember a time w/o internet, cell phones, etc. Good to see it got passed on. :up:

I rarely get to interact with anyone under 30(my generation) any more.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Yea I know, that's why I'm still skeptical. To me, this REEKS of a studio casting because she has an in built fan base which will automatically put bums in seats.

If I'm proved wrong? Fine. I'm not one to admit I ain't wrong.

Chris B
01-09-2010, 01:48 PM
Good God, she sounds like a 16 year old. And she's 23. It's too young. How am I going to take her seriously or buy her as a woman running an air force base while having smarts and confidence and manages to lock eyes with Hal and the people above her position?? It could be about as much as Katie Holmes as an assistant DA.

That right there is my biggest problem with Lively being cast. When it comes to the quality of the performance, I'm willing to give her a chance. But I just have a hard time buying that someone that young could be playing somebody who has a senior management position in a major aerospace company.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 01:49 PM
Confession: Iron Man was the first movie I ever saw RDJ in. The first time I ever heard about him was a joke on Family Guy. True story.


His best stuff has been in the last 5-10 years anyway since he got over the whole drug addiction/prison thing.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 01:49 PM
Edit.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 01:50 PM
He was brilliant in Chaplin and hilarious in Natural Born Killers.

Watson
01-09-2010, 01:51 PM
That right there is my biggest problem with Lively being cast. When it comes to the quality of the performance, I'm willing to give her a chance. But I just have a hard time buying that someone that young could be playing somebody who has a senior management position in a major aerospace company.

Well, if they go with the Ferris plotline from GL: Origins, it could make sense. Ferris had to take over when her father got sick, so it could be within the realm of popcorn logic, at the very least, that she was forced to take over at around 18-19 and has been working ever since.

EDIT: Also a thought...they could play like RDJ's character in IM, where they establish that he was fairly brilliant and well schooled at a young age.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 01:54 PM
Green Lantern has found his leading lady and she’s a Gossip Girl. Blake Lively will play Carol Ferris, the daughter of aerospace mogul Carl Ferris. She runs her father’s company and winds up hiring Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) as a test pilot and, of course, falls for him. In the comics their relationship hits a wall when she becomes the #1 at the company and an alien race dubs her the new Star Sapphire.

Back in December we told (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/One-Of-These-Five-Women-Will-Play-The-Green-Lantern-s-Girlfriend-16247.html) you about the final five for the role, which included Lively as well as Eva Green, Keri Russell, Diane Kruger and Jennifer Garner. At the time I thought Lively was the least likely of the bunch to nab the role, but clearly I was wrong. THR (http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/blake-lively-cast-as-female-lead-in-green-lantern.html) mentions that even the filmmakers were aware of the fact that Lively was a little young for the role, but they were so overwhelmed by her performance in The Town that they had to go for her.
Source. (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Blake-Lively-Is-Green-Lantern-s-Leading-Lady-16477.html)

Chris B
01-09-2010, 01:57 PM
Well, if they go with the Ferris plotline from GL: Origins, it could make sense. Ferris had to take over when her father got sick, so it could be within the realm of popcorn logic, at the very least, that she was forced to take over at around 18-19 and has been working ever since.

EDIT: Also a thought...they could play like RDJ's character in IM, where they establish that he was fairly brilliant and well schooled at a young age.

Something like that could work.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 02:04 PM
He was brilliant in Chaplin and hilarious in Natural Born Killers.


NBK, yeah I agree. I never saw Chaplin(just not my kind of movie) but I knew he got an oscar nom for it. But his work in the last 5 years or so has been more consitently good than at any other point in his career was all I meant.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 02:05 PM
Cool. And I'd agree :up:

Blackman
01-09-2010, 02:08 PM
Besides IM Ive only seen him CHarlie Bartlett, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Tropic Thunder

I didnt get to his part in NBK

Hes a great actor

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 02:10 PM
I guess you didn't like NBK? I loved it. It's definitely an acquired taste though.

Tropic Thunder? Ahhh man him and Tom Cruise saved that movie from mediocrity.

protocida
01-09-2010, 02:12 PM
THR (http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/blake-lively-cast-as-female-lead-in-green-lantern.html) mentions that even the filmmakers were aware of the fact that Lively was a little young for the role, but they were so overwhelmed by her performance in The Town that they had to go for her.


Still thinking she wasn't chosen for her talent? :oldrazz:

Blackman
01-09-2010, 02:13 PM
Well I started watching NBK when I was just trying to kill time. I wanted to find a movie that would just waste 2hrs and NBK I never saw before.

After the weird opening I kind of just said I'll watch it another time. So Im not sure if I like it or not because I ddint watch nearly enough of it

kedrell
01-09-2010, 02:13 PM
No one has said for sure that she wasn't. Just that we suspected so. But I'd like to hear Campbell himself weigh in on the subject.

kedrell
01-09-2010, 02:14 PM
Well I started watching NBK when I was just trying to kill time. I wanted to find a movie that would just waste 2hrs and NBK I never saw before.

After the weird opening I kind of just said I'll watch it another time. So Im not sure if I like it or not because I ddint watch nearly enough of it

It truly is a really weird movie.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 02:17 PM
No one has said for sure that she wasn't. Just that we suspected so. But I'd like to hear Campbell himself weigh in on the subject.
I mean even then Campbell could just be trying to ease the situation

But as I said and Im sure many of the people who had the same eh/meh reaction to this casting havent given up on the movie. Its just not a choice that we like

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 02:18 PM
Yea NBK is definitely weird, and requires quite a bit of attention.

protocida
01-09-2010, 02:21 PM
Since this is the forum's "it" thread, I ask: Is it OK to create a thread with a Plot summary of the first draft?

RachelDawes
01-09-2010, 02:30 PM
So Blake Lively is Carol...didn't see that coming. I wasn't thrilled when I heard the news but I'll give it a chance. I haven't been keeping up with casting. Was she rumored for the part or did this news come from out of the blue?

protocida
01-09-2010, 02:32 PM
It was rumored.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 02:33 PM
So Blake Lively is Carol...didn't see that coming. I wasn't thrilled when I heard the news but I'll give it a chance. I haven't been keeping up with casting. Was she rumored for the part or did this news come from out of the blue?
She was rumored for the part along with actresses like Eva Green, Kerri Russell and Diane Kruger.

RachelDawes
01-09-2010, 02:35 PM
She was rumored for the part along with actresses like Eva Green, Kerri Russell and Diane Kruger.

Hmm, I would've preferred those three actresses over Blake. Oh well, I hope she can pull it off. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

protocida
01-09-2010, 02:36 PM
Is it OK to create a thread with a Plot summary of the first draft?
Anyone?

kedrell
01-09-2010, 02:36 PM
Hmm, I would've preferred those three actresses over Blake. Oh well, I hope she can pull it off. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.


As are we all. ;)

kedrell
01-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Anyone?


I've no idea. Ask a mod.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Anyone?

I don't see why not. But you're better off asking a mod just incase.

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Anyone?
How about a FAQ thread with the plot summary, casting, etc? But I don't really know, you should ask a mod.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 02:41 PM
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=324040&highlight=draft
You even made this thread

and then heres another one
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=313222&highlight=spoilers

LadyVader
01-09-2010, 02:57 PM
I just hope this casting news isn't somehow an indication of the kind of target audience they are going for. :(

The Riddler
01-09-2010, 03:17 PM
she wasn't my first choice, but i'm not against this casting. it seemed like the most probable anyway.

Sub-Zero
01-09-2010, 03:20 PM
actually this casting doesn't surprise me. martin campbell movies always have an older actor paired with a much younger actress:

goldeneye: pierce brosnan(1953); izabella scorupco(1970)
mask of zorro: antonio banderas(1960); catherine zeta-jones(1969)
casino royale: daniel craig(1968); eva green(1980)

green lantern: ryan reynolds(1976); blake lively(1987)

the first 3 movies were major hits. i have faith. i haven't seen her act so i want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Keyser Soze
01-09-2010, 03:23 PM
Out of the shortlist of five actresses we heard about earlier, Blake Lively was the only one on the list I DIDN'T want to play Carol Ferris, so just my luck she ends up being the one that gets cast.

That said, I've not seen her act in anything (my preference for the other four was based mainly on seeing and liking their work), so I've got no reason to particularly dislike her either. I guess I'll take a "wait and see" approach.

Blackman
01-09-2010, 03:25 PM
actually this casting doesn't surprise me. martin campbell movies always have an older actor paired with a much younger actress:

goldeneye: pierce brosnan(1953); izabella scorupco(1970)
mask of zorro: antonio banderas(1960); catherine zeta-jones(1969)
casino royale: daniel craig(1968); eva green(1980)

green lantern: ryan reynolds(1976); blake lively(1987)

the first 3 movies were major hits. i have faith. i haven't seen her act so i want to give her the benefit of the doubt.
add RDJ(1965) and Rachel McADams(1978)
or even James Marsden(1973) and Famke Janssen(1965) there not Campbell though

but the difference in all of those are that the female or male doesn't look like she could still be in high school

Nightwing 52
01-09-2010, 03:26 PM
actually this casting doesn't surprise me. martin campbell movies always have an older actor paired with a much younger actress:

goldeneye: pierce brosnan(1953); izabella scorupco(1970)
mask of zorro: antonio banderas(1960); catherine zeta-jones(1969)
casino royale: daniel craig(1968); eva green(1980)

green lantern: ryan reynolds(1976); blake lively(1987)

the first 3 movies were major hits. i have faith. i haven't seen her act so i want to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Nice observation.

Sub-Zero
01-09-2010, 03:31 PM
add RDJ(1965) and Rachel McADams(1978)
or even James Marsden(1973) and Famke Janssen(1965) there not Campbell though

but the difference in all of those are that the female or male doesn't look like she could still be in high school

rachel mcadams does. haha. she played a high school student when she was in her mid twenties. blake looks way older than 22. i think you missed the point. i was just trying to show campbell's track record in casting. i wasn't saying it was awesome casting.

i really hope she can pull it off, mostly b/c i want gl to work. the comics have gotten really cool, and dc seems to want to make hal the new superman(like the face of dc comics).

OptimusPrime114
01-09-2010, 03:31 PM
add RDJ(1965) and Rachel McADams(1978)
or even James Marsden(1973) and Famke Janssen(1965) there not Campbell though

but the difference in all of those are that the female or male doesn't look like she could still be in high school

Wait! You mean to tell me that Jean Grey.....is a cougar? OMG!

Sub-Zero
01-09-2010, 03:43 PM
Yea I understand that.

The thing is though, after seeing bits and pieces of Gossip Girl (god save me) I have literally ZERO confidence this girl has the ability to take that massive first leap which you talk about.

And BTW Depp was in Platoon, not really a teeny bopper movie ;)

And Spiccoli was ****ing awesome! :D


i've never seen her act but i think if cambell sees potential we might be surprised. no one knew who famke janssen, eva green, or catherine zeta-jones were before they were in martin cambell movies.

also depp's first role was in a nightmare on elm street. he did a lot before edward scissorhands. oddly enough i think the story was that jackie earle haley auditioned for nightmare. he brought his friend depp with him, and the casting people thought depp was better. in the end they both got to work on a nightmare movie. jackie is now the new kruger.

Scarlet Spider
01-09-2010, 04:06 PM
Wait! You mean to tell me that Jean Grey.....is a cougar? OMG!

LOL. :hehe:

For what it's worth, James Marsden was a last minute replacement. Jim Caviezel was originally cast as Cyclops. Marsden may have been young but he had a mature look/presence and was believable in the role. Not to mention he had pretty good chemistry with Famke Janssen, despite their age difference.

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Besides IM Ive only seen him CHarlie Bartlett, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Tropic Thunder

I didnt get to his part in NBK

Hes a great actor

Watch Zodiac now foo! :cmad:

Doctor Jones
01-09-2010, 05:01 PM
Campbell you really have to do a job of convincing me here. I trust him more than I trust Lively.

Whatever the hell this performance is being the reason they cast her, I need to see it.

Project862006
01-09-2010, 05:09 PM
It's nothing to do with "least likely". People are questioning the motives of casting a untested TV actress. It stinks of a studio casting because Gossip Girl has a large fan base that will transfer to this movie and a good looking young actress.

or maybe just maybe she was actually good in her audition and impressed WB/Producers/Campbell/etc.

is that not likely?

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:11 PM
No, it's not. Not going by WB's other female casting choices.

Project862006
01-09-2010, 05:13 PM
Campbell must be a hack then he has no idea what he is doing i guess

Batman
01-09-2010, 05:16 PM
No, it's not. Not going by WB's other female casting choices.

Kate Bosworth was brought in as Kevin Spacey's suggestion. Katie Holmes was the only actress that auditioned on tape with Christian Bale. There were circumstances here that got them their parts - it wasn't just a 'studio casting'. So any number of circumstances could have led to this.

Ace of Knaves
01-09-2010, 05:20 PM
Campbell must be a hack then he has no idea what he is doing i guess

Who says it was Campbell's choice? Hell, Reynolds wasn't even Campbell's choice, Reynolds was a compromise between Campbell and the studio.

I don't consider Singer or Nolan hacks. Bosworth...Holmes...

terry78
01-09-2010, 05:21 PM
She was also in this flick called Elvis and Annabelle with Anthony Minghella. She did pretty good work.