How important is physical representation of characters on screen

[SatEL]

How important is physical representation of characters on screen? Whether its comics, books, Games or any other form of media. If a protagonist is described as 6,6 and blonde but an actor who is 5,7 and in the film black haired plays him. How much does this bother you that is if it even bothers you at all? or perhaps if a character is drawn as muscular and big and tall and then you get a moderately sized actor who is short. Does this simply irk you or does it take away from your enjoyment of the movie. And should directors stick to the exact descriptions of the characters or do they have the right to artistic license.

 

[dark_b]

its important if the look is part of the story

 

[cherokeesam]

its important if the look is part of the story

Pretty much sums it up.
I think a lot of casting b*itchery about any number of roles has been useless nitpicking, but in cases where the original character was *tied* to a certain look, then the filmmaker should strive to be true to that.

A few of the ones I *do* have a problem with:

*Dr. Doom --- his character was *always* identified as an Eastern European dictator. That's who he is, what he does. When Fox turned him into a milquetoast American corporate sleazoid, he projected about as much menace as an accountant.
*Elektra --- she's a dark-haired, bronze-skinned Greek assassin, *not* a fairhaired, fairskinned American twiggy.
*Venom --- 'nuff said. Eddie Brock *and* Venom. Completely missed the mark on both counts.

 

[Dugath]

I say as long as your somewhat close it is ok.
Wolverine is suppose to be about 5 foot 3. Mr.Jackman is 6'2. Besides the Dark hair they had nothing in common. But I got used to it.

 

[Conundrum]

I agree with the other posters. If the look is integral to the character, then it is vitally important.

Casting Daniel Craig as James Bond, no problem.
Casting Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, worst news I have heard in a long time.

 

[KenK]

It gets on my nerves when actors won't make the slightest of changes to look more like their characters. If a woman won't cut or dye her hair for a role that would actually call for it as a visual representation, it does kind of annoy me.

 

[SPIDER-MAN-ROX]

I say as long as your somewhat close it is ok.
Wolverine is suppose to be about 5 foot 3. Mr.Jackman is 6'2. Besides the Dark hair they had nothing in common. But I got used to it.

A midget wolverine would have been goofy, they went the right way by making him much taller.

 

[Drizzle]

Hugh Jackman being tall wasn't a big deal. Wolverine's height isn't the most important aspect of the character. Actually, Wolverine being short is pretty insignificant unless you're talking about the fastball special, but they even found a way to make that work in the films.

 

[Boom]

I'm still waiting for somebody to get Captain Ahab right on screen.

 

[The Navigator]

Only if it takes me out of the story--like that part in the first Matrix where Neo gets called 'coppertop,' or Clint Eastwood's 'blondie' from Leone's film. But eh, that's a passing distraction.

 

[geeknerddork]

I think Wolverine's height is kind of important to his character. He's the "runt". It's not just an important visual characteristic, it's tied into his personality and his concept. He's a Wolverine. Wolverines, the animal, are small creatures but are known to have no fear and will attack other animals many times their size. That's who Logan is. That's why he's "Wolverine" Just like Spider-Man needs to be a lean guy instead of a huge dude like Thor. That being said, it didn't bother me much in the movies, I got used to it. I think a short Wolverine would've been cooler, but oh well. They probably couldn't have gotten someone 5'3 like Logan is, but I think anything 5'7 and under would've seem alright. Tom Cruise is 5'7 he's considered one of the shorter actors, but he still makes a good action star and leading man. I don't mind characters straying from appearance that much if it's not that important to the character. But I think they should at least make the effort. For instance Val Kilmer as a blonde Batman was always kinda weird to me, haha.

 

[misjuevos]

i thought wolverine had the classic short man complex. always overcompensating. him being so tall just made him kind of a dick in the movie.

 

[Boom]

I will say. Some of the dwarves in the upcoming Hobbit films drive me absolutely crazy.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Only if it takes me out of the story--like that part in the first Matrix where Neo gets called 'coppertop,' or Clint Eastwood's 'blondie' from Leone's film. But eh, that's a passing distraction.

You do know that's a reference to humans being batteries in the matrix right?

 

[KRIM]

I agree with the other posters. If the look is integral to the character, then it is vitally important.

What constitutes as being integral to the character? I would say in regards to literature and graphic novels, if a particular aesthetic is dictated, one should always be keen on keeping faithful to the design. That goes double if you're adapting an iconic character.

 

[Thundarr]

You do know that's a reference to humans being batteries in the matrix right?

I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it.

But hey, maybe he doesn't buy Duracel batteries so is unaware of the reference. Come to think of it, I haven't seen a Duracel commercial on TV in ages.

 

[The Navigator]

You do know that's a reference to humans being batteries in the matrix right?

Of course.
Gotta stop posting at 2 am...

 

[Thundarr]

I think it totally depends on the character in question, and how far they stray from the original description.

Take Hugh Jackman as Wolverine for example. His face, hair, and athletic build were all perfect for the role. The only problem many fanboys had with the casting is Hugh's height being about a foot taller than the character's. But did it really make much of a difference in the film? Not really. And Tyler Mane as Sabretooth was so much bigger than him it wouldn't have made any difference in their fight scene anyway. I really couldn't see Tom Cruise in the role. He might be closer to the right height, but his look is all wrong.

Some people have a problem with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan The Barbarian. I, for one, loved him in that movie. It inspired me to read many of the novels and comics. The one thing that I think they should have done differently is he should have worn a black wig instead of brown extensions (or dyed his hair black and use matching extensions), but other than that I think he totally looked the part.

If someone is described as "big and muscular", I think it's a mistake to cast someone who's short and thin. And if someone is described as blond, brunette, redhead, etc, then the actor should either dye their hair or wear a wig. Basically, an effort should be made to get the look as close to the original description as humanly possible. If you make the character a little too tall or too short, I could care less. If you switch genders, race, hair colour, etc, then it starts to bother me.

 

[commonman]

well for me it matters with little exceptions. you just cant cast Tobey McGuire as Thor and Chris as Spidey. And talking about Hugh Jackman, He is fitted so perfectly as Logan that it doesn't matter now if Logan has to be sort or tall. If we dismiss height as a factor he is just perfect as Wolverine

 

[Thundarr]

Pretty much sums it up.
I think a lot of casting b*itchery about any number of roles has been useless nitpicking, but in cases where the original character was *tied* to a certain look, then the filmmaker should strive to be true to that.

A few of the ones I *do* have a problem with:

*Dr. Doom --- his character was *always* identified as an Eastern European dictator. That's who he is, what he does. When Fox turned him into a milquetoast American corporate sleazoid, he projected about as much menace as an accountant.

Making him an American corperate sleazoid didn't change his look though. Once he donned the mask and green cloak, he did look like Dr. Doom. I agree with you, they should have left his backstory/personality untouched, but this is about what characters look like on screen as compared to how they're depicted/described in comics/novels/etc.

*Elektra --- she's a dark-haired, bronze-skinned Greek assassin, *not* a fairhaired, fairskinned American twiggy.

*Venom --- 'nuff said. Eddie Brock *and* Venom. Completely missed the mark on both counts.

Again, what about his look was off? I though he looked just like he does in the comics. He was poorly written, having been shoehorned into the plot by the studio, but that has nothing to do with what he looks like. Green Goblin was farther from his source material (physically speaqking) than Venom was.

What about Brandon Routhe's costume in Superman Returns? Those were the ugliest shades of blue, red, and yellow I had ever seen. And I have never seen Superman wear those shades in any other movie, cartoon, comic book, or TV show. And I was a HUGE Superman fan when I was a kid, so I've seen plenty.

 

[marvelman2006]

Well for me it takes me out of the movie if the actor doesnt atleast resemble the character there portraying. It becomes distracting and I cant fully follow the story.




great examples:

Johnny Depp had the right look and mannerism to be a pirate from a famous disney ride. He completely immersed himself physically and mentally into the character of Jack sparrow and in turn it earned him attention from the academy and in some cases reinvented his career.

Robert Downey Jr had the physical look and mannerism again as well to own the role of Tony Stark and set the bar incredibly high for future actors for comic book movies.


bad examples:






Topher grace is a funny actor but was horribly miscast as venom. In the comics and cartoons weve come to associate Eddie brock as a meathead with a short fuse and the symbiote only enhances those qualities once he fully goes bad. Topher didnt have the physical presence or mental presence to pull it off and came off as a weird performance.

This ones an older and more famous miscast but John Wayne as Genghis Kahn well enough said.

 

[JAK®]

Wolverine being short is a big part of his character because the real Wolverine is a small animal that is surprisingly aggressive, it's also part of the 'unlikely hero' thing he's got going for him.

Now, Jackman was pretty good but I'll argue that his height did have a negative effect on the character because it made him more like the typical leading man which his character slowly devolved into as the movies progressed.

Wolverine doesn't have to be 5'3 but make him shorter than 5'10 at least.

 

[Boom]

Wolverine is 5'3" in the comic books?

Damn. I knew he was short, but not that short.

 

[THANOSRULES]

Brody really impressed me though, so sometimes you can't be too quick to judge.

 

[Teelie]

To me it really depends on whether there's a source material and how important it is that a character is represented. If the character is a Joe Any-man then it's not important. But if they're given a description and they are not cast as that look then it can really detract or alter the story.

The Airbender and Earthsea movies are two good examples of poor casting choices. I never watched the cartoon and haven't yet read the books but the fans of both sure were hopping mad at how Hollywood literally whitewashed the characters. I'd be disappointed too.