BvS Lex Luthor Casting Thread - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cruise comes with too much negative baggage due to his religion, which weirded people out more and more as time went on. I find him to be a decent actor, not all that great, but decent. He's more movie star than chameleon actor. His "brand" is sullied due to his personal life.

Wahlberg knows his limitations, stays within them and balances between dumb-paycheck movies and passion projects. Besides, he's fantastic in Boogie Nights, a scene-stealer in The Departed and solid in The Fighter. So he's not the worst out there. He's not really all that strong or diverse an actor, but what he can do he does well.

That's the difference. It's not a talent disparity. It's a PR issue mostly.

Cruise is a phenomenal actor. He does do action movies pretty much now though. His religion is pretty weird too.
 
Cruise is a phenomenal actor. He does do action movies pretty much now though. His religion is pretty weird too.

I'll give him a few performances, but I usually get a sense of sameness after a while with his work. It doesn't help that his default acting mode is "intense." It gets a little samey after a period of time.

But Born on the Fourth of July and Magnolia prove that when he wants to stretch and craft an original portrait, he can.
 
How is it a step down? Cranston's a tv actor. People have to stop treating him like he's Daniel Day Lewis. Hell, the guy was willing to play the villain in that terrible Recall remake last year and you're saying he's too good for a summer blockbuster featuring Superman/Batman? Pure idiocy.

I get what you are saying, but being a "tv actor" is not the same insult it used to be. This is the golden age of television while Hollywood is stagnating. Gritty smaller budget projects, the modern equivalents of things like The French Connection and The Godfather, are now largely being made as cable series instead. Granted, something can be said about small vs. big screen presence.
 
Cranston's worked with Affleck before, in Argo, the 'best movie of the year'.

So has Jon Hamm, in The Town. (and with Synder). hmm..

McCoughnahey is the best pick though. Such a slimeball.
 
I get what you are saying, but being a "tv actor" is not the same insult it used to be. This is the golden age of television while Hollywood is stagnating. Gritty smaller budget projects, the modern equivalents of things like The French Connection and The Godfather, are now largely being made as cable series instead. Granted, something can be said about small vs. big screen presence.

This.

Anyone else notice that a lot of big name movie actors have been transitioning to TV lately? Or that stars like Kathy Bates, Glenn Close, Jessica Lange are finding some of their most compelling and rich work on television?

TV is having a nice little renaissance right now. Films? Eh. We aren't having a golden decade, but on a year-to-year basis it's not so bad.
 
Even though he is rumored (is he confirmed yet) to play Groot in Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy", what about Vin Diesel as Lex Luthor?

1001714_500253686718343_245362177_n.jpg


I, personally, still want Mark Strong, Matt Damon, or Billy Zane.
 
Pretty sure that the three episodes of Breaking Bad we've had this year, are better than 95% of the films that have came out this year.

Television has not a been a "downgrade" in media for years; Sopranos, Mad Men, Shield, Arrested Development, 24, Band Of Brothers, Boardwalk Empire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, 'Breaking Bad', Six Feet Under, etc... are all better than films that came out in those tv shows respective genres, in the last few years.

I'd take most Showtime/AMC/HBO actors than most of the crap that Hollywood has been 'grooming' these last few years.
 
Even though he is rumored (is he confirmed yet) to play Groot in Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy", what about Vin Diesel as Lex Luthor?

1001714_500253686718343_245362177_n.jpg


I, personally, still want Mark Strong, Matt Damon, or Billy Zane.
lolololololololololol
 
Even though he is rumored (is he confirmed yet) to play Groot in Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy", what about Vin Diesel as Lex Luthor?

1001714_500253686718343_245362177_n.jpg


I, personally, still want Mark Strong, Matt Damon, or Billy Zane.

If you're going by looks, sure. But this isn't Wizard's Casting Call feature.

So, NO.
 
Michael C Hall
81687605923ed21b6f93971dccd1afac.jpg

Matthew Mcconaughey
PHitahgtiQpmll_1_m.jpg

Jon Hamm
1363862158_Mad_Men_-_Jon_Hamm_Sitting_Pose.jpg


Bryan Cranston and Mark Strong are fine, but not preferred.
 
Last edited:
Cranston has been popping up ALL over the internet

have a feeling like it will be official

it's not a bad choice, but i would have preferred Cranston for Gordon
 
Guys, Rolling Stone is reporting it now...

BUT, they're quoting Cosmic Book News...so...eh.
 
Pretty sure that the three episodes of Breaking Bad we've had this year, are better than 95% of the films that have came out this year.

Television has not a been a "downgrade" in media for years; Sopranos, Mad Men, Shield, Arrested Development, 24, Band Of Brothers, Boardwalk Empire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, 'Breaking Bad', Six Feet Under, etc... are all better than films that came out in those tv shows respective genres, in the last few years.

I'd take most Showtime/AMC/HBO actors than most of the crap that Hollywood has been 'grooming' these last few years.

My point is it's ridiculous to call it a "step down" when actors that are better than Cranston have been more than willing to play the Luthor character on the big screen. Not to mention his point was meaningless when you consider Cranston played a hackneyed villain in that bad Recall movie. Yeah, definitely credible to do a remake of an Arnie shoot-em-up but a Superman character is a step down for him.

And I stress the "tv actor" aspect only because some people have it in their minds that Cranston is a big box office draw when he's never carried a film before in his life.
 
My point is it's ridiculous to call it a "step down" when actors that are better than Cranston have been more than willing to play the Luthor character on the big screen. Not to mention his point was meaningless when you consider Cranston played a hackneyed villain in that bad Recall movie. Yeah, definitely credible to do a remake of an Arnie shoot-em-up but a Superman character is a step down for him.

And I stress the "tv actor" aspect only because some people have it in their minds that Cranston is a big box office draw when he's never carried a film before in his life.

So, we can't say Affleck can be a good Batman because of the ****** Gigli/Daredevil... but Cranston can't be Luthor because the ****** Total Recall remake. Both failures were mostly outside of roles, but...

I most definitely believe in Cranston more than Affleck. BB alone, outshines anything Affleck has ever done 'in acting'.
 
So all Cranston is is rumors at this point.


As hard as this is for me to type, that actually relieves me. I like Cranston. He's a huge talent that is getting his due later in his career, but he is getting it. I just don't see Lex there. Walter White may be scary and compelling in his own way, but he's a small town puissant compared to Luthor. Maybe Cranston would be great. I just see an actor that is both younger (closer to Affleck's age) and with a much more intimidating physical presence.
 
Good Morning America's website states that Cranston has signed a deal
for to appear in 6 movies as lex luthor from MARVEL STUDIOS?????
Link for proof:
http://gma.yahoo.com/5-best-superhero-villains-big-screen-202804899--abc-news-entertainment.html
I know most people probably don't care about the difference between Marvel and DC, but they should really consider hiring an editor over there, perhaps Perry White, you know, from Spiderman, where Jimmy Olsen is actually a guy who dresses up like a spider because they scare him and his parents were murdered by Jack Napier, and was raised by his butler, Jarvis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"