Crook
Avenger
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 16,297
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
They're both safe in different contexts. Bale was safe because his dark roles prior to Batman gave us a good indication of how and where he was going to take the role. We knew what to expect. Evans is safe in that he already has marketability, plus the leading man look/presence. The studios could have gone for a lesser name, but the casting of Evans is a sure sign they don't want to take that big of a risk. However, I don't think any of us have any idea of how he's going to play Cap, regardless of his other dramatic turns.I disagree with your assessment of "safe pick." I'm curious to see how many people actually used that wording when they found out Bale was cast. I doubt many. Evans, IMO, is a "safe pick", because he has already played a superhero and he did a solid job. Bale was not a superhero before he was cast so I don't consider that a "safe" choice. It happened to be a choice many like though. Liking a choice and a safe choice are not the same thing.
This.Like I said, I think I'd be more comfortable, a lot more comfortable if we had a better director.
The difference between Cap and GL is that the latter has a proven director who works well with action and actors. So even if the star is usually known for his comedic wit, it stands a good chance that the project will turn out alright.
I'm cautious about Evans, but I am more than worried about Johnston.