Altie said:
it's not the first time that marketing don't rely on him - another example would be Wanted, where the marketing was focused on Angelina Jolie, while McAvoy was the lead.
At least he was on the poster and the DVD cover!
t: No seriously, there are no excuses for the absence of James on The Rogue Cut marketing campaign. I find that outrageous. He got second billing after Hugh, the actor isn't unknown as he was when Wanted was released (especially when compared to Jolie) and isn't DOFP supposed to be Charles' arc anyway? Absurd.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason why James is not used for marketing is because Hollywood has this idea of standard male beauty he hasn't, and deems his face not to be really recognizable enough for publicity, too ordinary.
Could be. Maybe it's something that happens more in the US, I don't know. When you compare the DVD cover of a film like The Conspirator, the American version is the
only one that doesn't have his face on the cover. The Last King of Scotland had like FOUR images of Whitaker, a small one of Kerry Washington and none of James, even though he was the main character.
I think he's a very handsome man whose "fault" is to be shorter than the average Hollywood star, so I guess that since he's not American and called Tom Cruise he must be punished for it.
Not to mention the superb actor he is, of course.
And in a sense, it's true - and precisely he's a chameleon because when he acts you see the character, and not the actor. Unlike, I think, someone like Fassbender.
And personally, I feel his charisma appears when you see him move and talk, and his face and eyes take all the expressions (seriously, on stage he glows for real, I've never seen this on anyone before) - but that doesn't really appear in a still or on a poster.
Everyday - and I mean every single day - I read a tweet saying something like "no way, is the actor who plays Charles Xavier the same who played Mr. Tumnus?!?"
t:
So yeah, I guess that the fact that the actor disappears into the character is at the same time a blessing and a curse, because so many people can't figure out that James is the same guy playing Tumnus, Charles, Macbeth and Bruce from Filth.
And you are right when you say that when he's moving - acting, of course, but also giving interviews - you can't take your eyes off him. On a stage he really glows. His physicality, energy and charisma are personality traits that a few photographers managed to capture.
Another fear I had was that Vaughn would gloss over Charles' trauma of losing the use of his legs and the two people he loves most in the world. It bugged the hell of out of me at the end of XMFC to see Xavier depicted as being emotionally stable after going through hell. (...) When I look back on my concerns 4 years ago on how Xavier's role would be treated in the follow-up, XMDOFP turned out to be a godsend.
So true. I'm pretty sure Vaughn was dying to put Charles on the background sitting in his wheelchair, pretty satisfied to be The Professor, while Magneto would get all the action and focus. He had already said that he (Vaughn) would have to find a new nemesis for Magneto to fight, since Charles was out of the picture in his wheelchair.
While I agree that Magneto's character development in DOFP was really lacking, I think that DOFP was the first time we saw a Charles Xavier personal development (I've always thought that Charles in FC was merely at service of Magneto's character development, and only James' intensity and commitment made Charles relevant), so that was fair. I hope we'll get more of a balance in Apocalypse.
On a somewhat related note, Xavier is less popular than Logan and Erik because he has an androgynous personality (a mix of so-called "masculine" and "feminine" traits). In our patriarchy-influenced culture, empathetic "nice guys" unfortunately finish last to über-violent maniacs.
We still live in a sexist and macho society, and geek/nerd culture can be extremely sexist. I read an article a week ago about women cosplayers who complained about being ridiculed and even harassed because of their "provocative" costumes. I can see how a character like Charles won't have a great appeal to mass consumption, sadly. So I was really glad to see him get a lot of attention and development in DOFP, and I guess I really have to thank Kinberg for that.
I consider Fassbender to be James' equal in terms of their acting talent, but I agree that because Fassbender has a more distinct face, he doesn't "blend" into his roles as much visually like the way McAvoy can.
James is the kind of actor who appeals to people who don't need anything "flashy" to appreciate how skilled a thespian is at his/her craft, and sadly we only make up a small fraction of moviegoers.
I'm Team McAvoy and I may be completely biased, but I have a personal explanation as to why he appeals more to me as an actor, and it's based on a first impressions (the first time I saw James and Fassbender acting in a film) and seeing James on a stage for three times now. Theater will never get the same level of attention and impact culture as much as films, so unfortunately a large portion of James' talent will go unnoticed to critics in general, who somehow determined that Fassbender is the best actor. Well, I may be in minority but I'll stick with the Scottish dude.
