OFFICIAL Guardians of Galaxy Casting Thread - Part 1

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Yeah, they'd be lucky to see $1 million based on what people not named RDJ made for Avengers.

This won't be a $1.5 B grossing film. Maybe 1/3rd that. There aren't going to be any Avengers-esque pay offs here.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

I doubt an actor like Chris Lowell has anywhere near the stroke of a Robert Downey Jr when it comes to haggling over percentage points. He might see a set pay increase for his second outing, but I doubt even if Guardians of the Galaxy is a hit, that any lesser known actor in the role of Star-Lord will break $1 M.

ugh.. I didn't say he did, what I'm saying is that as a lead in a Marvel franchise you get paid after the release...no actor is haggling over anything, lawyers and agents do that..it would be comical to think any actor would slam their fist on a desk and demand more money.. I doubt anyone will be getting $1m for acting in Guardians upfront.. Gunn might get that for double-duty as director/writer.. all that money that's budgeted goes into production.. that's how Avengers is made for $230m instead of $300m plus.. bloggers/reporters have made up this fairytale that Marvel is cheap because they don't handover lump sums upfront to their actors...they pay them later with the profits after the production costs are covered..Marvel isn't the only studio that does this and it's actually becoming more common these days..

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

This won't be a $1.5 B grossing film. Maybe 1/3rd that. There aren't going to be any Avengers-esque pay offs here.

Yeah. I'm agreeing with you.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

ugh.. I didn't say he did, what I'm saying is that as a lead in a Marvel franchise you get paid after the release...no actor is haggling over anything, lawyers and agents do that..it would be comical to think any actor would slam their fist on a desk and demand more money.. I doubt anyone will be getting $1m for acting in Guardians upfront.. Gunn might get that for double-duty as director/writer.. all that money that's budgeted goes into production.. that's how Avengers is made for $230m instead of $300m plus.. bloggers/reporters have made up this fairytale that Marvel is cheap because they don't handover lump sums upfront to their actors...they pay them later with the profits after the production costs are covered..Marvel isn't the only studio that does this and it's actually becoming more common these days..

The implication when I say "Actor" is their representation.

And many sources have said production costs of Avengers did indeed balloon to $300 M. $220 M is the stock-holder pleasing number.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

This won't be a $1.5 B grossing film. Maybe 1/3rd that. There aren't going to be any Avengers-esque pay offs here.

again..it's a ladder model for actors getting paid low sums upfront then more money later on.. I'd say the Guardian actors would get paid well on the backend if the film makes around $500-700m worldwide.. that's decent figure considering it would need to make around that to cover production/advertising costs.. not sure why any audience member should really care how much an actor makes.. it's more important about them being right for the role.. also it would be fun to ignore this "fact" but DISNEY OWNS MARVEL AND PAYS FOR THE PRODUCTIONS NOW POST-AVENGERS.. Disney spends over $200m on giant flops films ..to think they wouldn't give Marvel (who has a massive proven track record with hits) extra funds if they really needed them to secure talent.. Disney just bought Star Wars which just shows how much money they have to blow.. they're possibly spending Marvel-sized money on Brad Bird/Damon Lindelof's secret sci-fi film.. this isn't Marvel doing it on their own and partnering with Paramount to distribute anymore..

also if you look at other "big" films I doubt there were salary demands during the contract signings for Lord of The Rings, Hobbit (besides returners), X-Men 1, Avatar, Star Trek reboot and kill me for referencing Twilight..however, I don't think a lot of the leads of those films are starving or ranting about they got screwed out of millions.. it's exposure and an interest in the material that would drive an actor to want to join a film like Guardians of The Galaxy.. if an actor was only in it for the money then you'd see that on screen and it would be a wasted performance..

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

again..it's a ladder model for actors getting paid low sums upfront then more money later on.. I'd say the Guardian actors would get paid well on the backend if the film makes around $500-700m worldwide.. that's decent figure considering it would need to make around that to cover production/advertising costs.. not sure why any audience member should really care how much an actor makes.. it's more important about them being right for the role.. also it would be fun to ignore this "fact" but DISNEY OWNS MARVEL AND PAYS FOR THE PRODUCTIONS NOW POST-AVENGERS.. Disney spends over $200m on giant flops films ..to think they wouldn't give Marvel (who has a massive proven track record with hits) extra funds if they really needed them to secure talent.. Disney just bought Star Wars which just shows how much money they have to blow.. they're possibly spending Marvel-sized money on Brad Bird/Damon Lindelof's secret sci-fi film.. this isn't Marvel doing it on their own and partnering with Paramount to distribute anymore..

also if you look at other "big" films I doubt there were salary demands during the contract signings for Lord of The Rings, Hobbit (besides returners), X-Men 1, Avatar, Star Trek reboot and kill me for referencing Twilight..however, I don't think a lot of the leads of those films are starving or ranting about they got screwed out of millions.. it's exposure and an interest in the material that would drive an actor to want to join a film like Guardians of The Galaxy.. if an actor was only in it for the money then you'd see that on screen and it would be a wasted performance..

Well in the case of a Joseph Gordon Levitt, who was in talks for Star-Lord, I believe the low money (though I imagine they'd give him more than the other guys) and the high commitment probably scared him off. Same with a guy like John Krasinski, who gets paid $125k per episode on the Office. The money Marvel offers would be a slap in the face for anyone but the true no-names on the list.

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

Marvel didn't hire "big names" for Thor or Captain America..we shouldn't expect one for Quill either.. the supporting cast is where Marvel hires the names..Kevin Feige is developing Marvel's own talent.. Evans hasn't caught-on like Hemsworth but Snowpiercer could change that..

But in the case of this film, it's not Starlord who is the name of the movie or the one driving the whole thing. It's an ensemble piece. Starlord not exactly a known character either. What would be wrong with hiring a big name for the main character in this case? Why hire it for the supporting cast?

[terry78]

Hollywood likes to hire unknown actors who have done minimal or indie work for their young male leads and bring onboard A or B-list talent for supporting. That's like the current trend. It's a not so subtle way of trying to build up new talent so they don't get overshadowed.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

But in the case of this film, it's not Starlord who is the name of the movie or the one driving the whole thing. It's an ensemble piece. Starlord not exactly a known character either. What would be wrong with hiring a big name for the main character in this case? Why hire it for the supporting cast?

Jake Sully from Avatar wasn't a known character either, but Cameron still went for an unknown.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

take a chance and watch Punch-Drunk Love from Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights) you might actually think that Adam Sandler is able to actually act and carry a film..

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Yeah man but this isn't a PTA drama we're talking about.

[Christopher_M]

someone on another GOTG thread has suggested Ron Perlman for Thanos.. I actually really like the idea.. he's got a connection with Joss Whedon playing of his space pirates in Alien Resurrection which Joss wrote.. along with credibility with roles in Drive and Sons of Anarchy.. plus enjoys comic book material taking the lead in Hellboy and playing a Marvel villain in Blade 2.. he's got the voice, the size, the fan following and extensive years working with crazy amounts of makeup..which would be needed to bring Thanos to life (hopefully they go a non-CGI route).. he's a much better option than a voice actor, stuntman and CGI combo..

[KangConquers]

He would still be CGed, since Thanos is probably going to be very large....but a guy like Pearlman would be more practical in that he could bring a physical element to the character.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

He would still be CGed, since Thanos is probably going to be very large....but a guy like Pearlman would be more practical in that he could bring a physical element to the character.

they can use a technique called forced-perspective.. it's the same way they make Gandalf a giant compared to Hobbits along with many other films.. in camera tricks could be a better option than just being lazy and having a digital artist do instead of the director and makeup team..unless they're using Gollum-grade Weta rigs it's going to look silly..




this CGI/motion capture villain for example wasn't very scary or even believable.. when he actual spoke

[terry78]

His face should still be CG I think though. Thanos makeup could end up looking insanely crappy.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by terry78

His face should still be CG I think though. Thanos makeup could end up looking insanely crappy.

I thought the makeup on the Frost Giants (close-up in camera) was okay but looked cartoonish when CGI movements clicked in.. even the set images of Malekith look fine to me, no CGI there.. Surtur on the other hand needs to be CGI..

[Son of Coul]

No reason they can't use both. Prosthetics with CG enhancements would work just fine.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Son of Coul

No reason they can't use both. Prosthetics with CG enhancements would work just fine.

What I've been saying forever. Force perspective, Prosthetics, CG Enhancements. Use all 3. Make the best Thanos possible.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

What I've been saying forever. Force perspective, Prosthetics, CG Enhancements. Use all 3. Make the best Thanos possible.

agreed! not saying zero CGI..I've been hearing people talk about entirely CGI character with a voice over actor.. get a solid actor not some stand-in stuntman..there needs to be some actual in camera moments and interaction with this villain..

we don't want all greenscreen again..

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by terry78

His face should still be CG I think though. Thanos makeup could end up looking insanely crappy.

I'd use prosthetics and mocap in conjunction. That way when you're sticking it in the computer, you have some sort of real physical dimension to that giant jaw, and you're just making it look better vs. Taking a normal person's features and creating Thanos from scratch.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

I'd use prosthetics and mocap in conjunction. That way when you're sticking it in the computer, you have some sort of real physical dimension to that giant jaw, and you're just making it look better vs. Taking a normal person's features and creating Thanos from scratch.

it took Marvel three films to figure out how to get Hulk right.. even then it was still Ruffalo a trained actor doing his motion capture..

[Chewy]

Sure you can find examples of crappy CGI to condemn it. You can also find examples of great CGI to praise it. It always always always depends on how much time and money the studio is willing to devote, regardless of technique. Be it entirely prosthetics and forced persepectives, entirely CGI, or some combination of the two. I don't think they're going to skimp on Thanos.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

it took Marvel three films to figure out how to get Hulk right.. even then it was still Ruffalo a trained actor doing his motion capture..

I'm a tad confused what you don't like about what I said...care to clarify?

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Sure you can find examples of crappy CGI to condemn it. You can also find examples of great CGI to praise it. It always always always depends on how much time and money the studio is willing to devote, regardless of technique. Be it entirely prosthetics and forced persepectives, entirely CGI, or some combination of the two. I don't think they're going to skimp on Thanos.

Exactly.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

I'm a tad confused what you don't like about what I said...care to clarify?

nothing just adding statements hehe

[terry78]

Watching A-Team on FX and I could really see Cooper as Quill now.