I'm Reading Your Stuff: General News and Discussion Thread

Hoult thrives more in weird, random, yet comedic roles... like The Menu.

Don't really want him as a lead-lead in an IP film.

He was greatly misused in X-Men.

I don't see him fitting into The Batman Saga... not even as Dent.
 
Hoult thrives more in weird, random, yet comedic roles... like The Menu.

Don't really want him as a lead-lead in an IP film.

He was greatly misused in X-Men.

I don't see him fitting into The Batman Saga... not even as Dent.
I didn't think someone could articulate how i feel about Hoult better than this. I don't see him as Villain material for a Batman movie, but I love him in most other things. He was amazing in The Menu.
 
Hoult would have been great and I can 100% picture The Batman with him. He has a great, cold, vampiric aristocrat quality to him that would have been different from Rob but absolutely still lines up with the character on the page.
 
Hoult would've been insufferably boring, there is absolutely nothing in any of his performances that'd lead me to think he'd do any good in a stoic, haunted role like this. Maybe you can make an argument for him visually but performance wise he genuinely brings nothing to the table that'd have been useful for this.

I don't think Matt ever seriously considered him either. In all of the interviews he basically talks about Rob being pretty much his only choice for the role and completely skips talking about even thinking of other candidates or even needing the screen test to be convinced Rob was his guy.

He probably screen tested because WB wanted an alternative and negotiating power over Robert.
 
Hoult would've been insufferably boring, there is absolutely nothing in any of his performances that'd lead me to think he'd do any good in a stoic, haunted role like this. Maybe you can make an argument for him visually but performance wise he genuinely brings nothing to the table that'd have been useful for this.

I don't think Matt ever seriously considered him either. In all of the interviews he basically talks about Rob being pretty much his only choice for the role and completely skips talking about even thinking of other candidates or even needing the screen test to be convinced Rob was his guy.

He probably screen tested because WB wanted an alternative and negotiating power over Robert.
I do not understand this. It's incredibly obvious to me why Hoult was the runner up to Pattinson. Of course Reeves seriously considered him, obviously he wanted Pattinson but he wasn't going to pick some rando he didn't want as his next in line if Rob didn't work out.

Reeves probably fudges history a bit in interviews about production because almost all directors do that. Especially when it comes to casting.
 
I do not understand this. It's incredibly obvious to me why Hoult was the runner up to Pattinson. Of course Reeves seriously considered him, obviously he wanted Pattinson but he wasn't going to pick some rando he didn't want as his next in line if Rob didn't work out.

Reeves probably fudges history a bit in interviews about production because almost all directors do that. Especially when it comes to casting.
I mean yeah, Reeves needed a second choice and I have no doubt he picked Hoult as a second choice-but it was probably miles away from what Robert is.

Even the trades aluded as much at the time, with them reporting early on that the studio was carefully looking at other picks just because they wanted to make sure.

I don't think Reeves is fudging the history at all here because aside from it being really obvious the script was written for Rob, he wouldn't need to make it /that/ clear that Rob was his guy all along and he always knew that. I think that in an interview he even said he only did the screen test because WB told him it's traditionally what they always do.
 


Grace Randolph was right. You all owe her an apology

I haven't seen anyone on here dispute the rumor that Batman Part II would start production in Fall, so no idea what you're talking about? Also I don't think Grace Randolph is owed anything in regards to being a dubious source most of the time, but that's just me.
 


Grace Randolph was right. You all owe her an apology

f6e2615c95c9eb8e70dca7ee3ab87519b174ef70.gif
 
Hoult thrives more in weird, random, yet comedic roles... like The Menu.

Don't really want him as a lead-lead in an IP film.

He was greatly misused in X-Men.

I don't see him fitting into The Batman Saga... not even as Dent.
Not even as Jonathan Crane?
 
I could see Hoult as Tommy Elliot. Maybe not Dent, I agree there
 
As a guy who watched Nicholas Hoult during his earlier years in Skins, I cannot disagree more with regards to the roles he can do. If we still went by the logic of roles that actors are most well known for, Bryan Cranston would still be the guy off Malcolm in the Middle (among countless other examples of this exact phenomenon in terms of typecasting).

Hoult can absolutely do sly and manipulative bastards, like a lot of Batman villains are. Take a watch of his work as Tony Stonem in Skins Season 1, if you don't believe me in this regard. He's really goddamn good at conveying enough manipulative and malicious intent that you feel it as an audience member watching the show, but not enough of that intent it's unbelievable the other characters don't see it. And on the flip side, he's more than capable of conveying enough empathy from that exact character you can sympathise with him despite that. That alone was enough to convince me he could absolutely do someone like Two-Face, Hush, Scarecrow etc. And this dude was doing that at 17 years old.

Just because he's been mostly in roles as quirky comedic roles does not mean that's all he's capable of. There are so many actors in the history books who have proven this exact type of thinking wrong. Whether Hoult can do it, we're only gonna know if/when he gets cast. But I personally think he'd do a far better job than y'all think.
 
As a guy who watched Nicholas Hoult during his earlier years in Skins, I cannot disagree more with regards to the roles he can do. If we still went by the logic of roles that actors are most well known for, Bryan Cranston would still be the guy off Malcolm in the Middle (among countless other examples of this exact phenomenon in terms of typecasting).

Hoult can absolutely do sly and manipulative bastards, like a lot of Batman villains are. Take a watch of his work as Tony Stonem in Skins Season 1, if you don't believe me in this regard. He's really goddamn good at conveying enough manipulative and malicious intent that you feel it as an audience member watching the show, but not enough of that intent it's unbelievable the other characters don't see it. And on the flip side, he's more than capable of conveying enough empathy from that exact character you can sympathise with him despite that. That alone was enough to convince me he could absolutely do someone like Two-Face, Hush, Scarecrow etc. And this dude was doing that at 17 years old.

Just because he's been mostly in roles as quirky comedic roles does not mean that's all he's capable of. There are so many actors in the history books who have proven this exact type of thinking wrong. Whether Hoult can do it, we're only gonna know if/when he gets cast. But I personally think he'd do a far better job than y'all think.
True History of the Kelley Gang is a great example of why Hoult would be great as pretty much any of the big Bat villains or Batman himself. Really intense, vicious, gripping performance. A lot of the issue I suspect is that he is a great actor who has rarely landed the type of roles in Hollywood that really showcase what he is capable of.

It's just so obvious to me why he was the runner up to Pattinson. He's such a similar type. What you'd have gotten with Hoult I think would have been much more of a Michael Keaton energy, quiet and restrained and simmering but with outbursts of manic intensity.
 
It's just so obvious to me why he was the runner up to Pattinson. He's such a similar type. What you'd have gotten with Hoult I think would have been much more of a Michael Keaton energy, quiet and restrained and simmering but with outbursts of manic intensity.

Oh absolutely. I could 100% see Hoult playing the Matt Reeves version of the character, albeit with his own spin on it. I honestly still contend that Hoult is still a fantastic pick for any Batman villain who's meant to be an inverse to Batman himself on some level. Whether that's Two Face, Hush, I honestly even think he'd do a great job as a more Dark Knight Returns esque Joker. Very underrated as a fan cast imo (considering the overall consensus here)
 
Oh absolutely. I could 100% see Hoult playing the Matt Reeves version of the character, albeit with his own spin on it. I honestly still contend that Hoult is still a fantastic pick for any Batman villain who's meant to be an inverse to Batman himself on some level. Whether that's Two Face, Hush, I honestly even think he'd do a great job as a more Dark Knight Returns esque Joker. Very underrated as a fan cast imo (considering the overall consensus here)
It would be easier for me to list the villains I don't think Hoult would be suited to, tbh.
 
As a guy who watched Nicholas Hoult during his earlier years in Skins, I cannot disagree more with regards to the roles he can do. If we still went by the logic of roles that actors are most well known for, Bryan Cranston would still be the guy off Malcolm in the Middle (among countless other examples of this exact phenomenon in terms of typecasting).

Hoult can absolutely do sly and manipulative bastards, like a lot of Batman villains are. Take a watch of his work as Tony Stonem in Skins Season 1, if you don't believe me in this regard. He's really goddamn good at conveying enough manipulative and malicious intent that you feel it as an audience member watching the show, but not enough of that intent it's unbelievable the other characters don't see it. And on the flip side, he's more than capable of conveying enough empathy from that exact character you can sympathise with him despite that. That alone was enough to convince me he could absolutely do someone like Two-Face, Hush, Scarecrow etc. And this dude was doing that at 17 years old.

Just because he's been mostly in roles as quirky comedic roles does not mean that's all he's capable of. There are so many actors in the history books who have proven this exact type of thinking wrong. Whether Hoult can do it, we're only gonna know if/when he gets cast. But I personally think he'd do a far better job than y'all think.
:up: Also ..er Battinson Twilight. Kind of relevant.

Hoult is improving a lot IMO and I think impressions of him will be different in future.
 
:up: Also ..er Battinson Twilight. Kind of relevant.

Hoult is improving a lot IMO and I think impressions of him will be different in future.

Nah, Hoult is already there. He just needs more of the mainstream media and folks to catch up. From the recent films, 'The Menu', to his series The Great, his performance as Nux in Fury Road etc. He got it, just needs more of a media push. Kinda like those of us who new Pattinson had put in the work post vamp flicks, we were just waiting for the main media and fandom to catch up. Hoult can play any character at this point.
 
Nah, Hoult is already there. He just needs more of the mainstream media and folks to catch up. From the recent films, 'The Menu', to his series The Great, his performance as Nux in Fury Road etc. He got it, just needs more of a media push. Kinda like those of us who new Pattinson had put in the work post vamp flicks, we were just waiting for the main media and fandom to catch up. Hoult can play any character at this point.
Yeah, also for people to catch more of those films and for word to spread.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"