Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fantastic Four World' started by Thread Manager, Oct 6, 2014.
Wow. I believe you.
"The Human Torch and the torchettes".
In the sequel that will never get made. Mr. The Thing With No Pants new catch phrase will be
It's Dancing Time
& The Fake Johnny Storm's new never to be used catch phrase will be
He did the absolute best with what he had and of the four members had the best performance, which is saying a lot.
Just because the director failed to capitlize on the talent of the people cast doesn't mean they weren't a "perfect fit". It's incredibly hard to churn out your best work when the negativity is at an all time high...there's only so much to be done.
Doesn't matter how good of an actor you are...if you are dealing with an incompetent director your performance is going to suffer in some form or another.
Anyone can argue someone is a perfect fit for the role and then say they were just playing it the way the director told them to play it. If Tim Blake Nelson were cast in the role of Johnny instead and played it exactly the way he played General Allen, and then we found out that Trank wanted him to play it that way as a middle-aged military man, then anyone can argue that he was a perfect fit for the role as well. Doesn't mean he was, or that he is remotely like the character. He would just be JINO.
Yeah I'm just not buying these "perfect fit" arguments at all. Not saying the dude couldn't have been great in the role but he wasn't a perfect fit.
Maybe Kelly is right and it is just hyperbole that is overused but at the same time there are actors that are indeed perfect fits.
Christopher Reeve was a perfect Superman who played the role in some very awful Superman films.
RDJ is a perfect fit for Tony Stark and some of his films have also had mixed reception.
I understand the director can make or break an actor but was Heath Ledger a perfect fit because of the direction or because of his dedication to the role that in the end cost him his life?
Let me clarify...on this particular forum hyperbole, in that context, is used often....and therefore I read it as such.
And hey, hey......hey....watch it with the Donner Superman movies...#1 is still one of my favorite Superman movies, and Keaton is still my favorite Batman, so back off bucko.....
Please don't misunderstand me. Superman: The Movie is actually my 2nd favorite comic book movie of all time even after over 30+ years. I also love Superman II. I was trying to use Christopher Reeve as an example of someone I would consider a perfect fit. But not all of those movies were good. And even in the bad movies (III and IV) he still gave a great performance. That was my point.
Keaton is also my favorite Batman BTW (although I never mentioned that one ).
I'm not saying Jordan needed to do a whole different performance, I'm simply stating what we got to see was damn good for what he had to work with & that under a better director the performance would've been even stronger.
With stronger material and more time he would've been better. MBJ has charm for days, but I was shocked with how stifled and cliche his performance was. Again, I blame that entirely on Trank.
MBJ did play a good Johnny Storm esque character in Chronicle in my opinion, so I wouldn't go to say he could not do it. Like Flint said, I felt Trank and the writers (Slater, Kinberg) hindered his performance (Literally other than Reed, none of the other four really get any character development). His performance in the film was very stifled and kinda generic.
And Kelly, yeah I can see they are disinterested really. I suspect the troubled production, a cranky director probably had to play in that
You can't act when a crazy director is telling you when to blink and breathe, so yeah. Trank deserves most of the blame for the poor performances.
But wasn't the same Trank who directed him in Chronicles brought him to FFINO? It's the same director for both of these movies!
Yes, damn this FFINO director who didn't get a good performance out of MBJ. Should've gotten the Chronicle director instead. Oh wait...
So what if it was the same director...does that mean he has to direct an actor the same way in every movie he makes? He obviously had a vision for how he wanted this one to look and he directed the actors to act the way he envisioned.
Previous works don't exclude the failures of present endeavors. As a director, it's your job to get the best out of your actors...if you're dealing with obviously talented people and their performances fall flat, usually the director is the problem. Considering Trank tried fighting one of the actors, did his best to omit & belittle the usage of his one female lead & acted like a general ass, I'd definitely say he was the problem here.
He wasn't ever mentally capable of directing a Hollywood blockbuster and it shows. He cracked under pressure...hell, that may be an understatement of the biggest variety.