MarvelKnight
Sidekick
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Jason Bourne in outer-space.. I would not oppose. Especially if he is interested.
Damon would be too good to be true. My guess is he wouldnt be interested and that it would take too much money to change his mind. But who knows?
Can't wait to see him in Elysium though.
I know Quill is supposed to be in his mid-30's in the comics, but most of the actors I like for Star-Lord are around 40. Harrison Ford was in his late 30's when he played Han Solo, which is the equivalent of early 40's these days. Not that they're the same character, but I think Quill should have a bit of mileage by the time we meet him in GotG.
Early 40's works fine for Star-Lord. Works better than younger to be honest, easier to make him seem like he's been through some wear and tear
There's nothing strange about that, given that he's not in his original body. The body of Drax the Destroyer is one which was manufactured by Chronos, the god of the Titans, who put the spirit of Arthur Douglas into his creation. There's no reason whatsoever why Drax should be played by an older actor because the age of Arthur Douglas at his death has no bearing at all on the appearance of Drax the Destroyer, and a younger actor would actually be more fitting for the role. At most they'd need an older actor for the occasional flashback to his human life.
I'll just leave this here...
Yeah 32 is much too young. If they choose a young actor, they'll have to "age" him a bit, which should be no problem.
And obviously you can't have a 50-60 year old actor playing Drax. His "age" in the comics has nothing to do with his actual physical condition. Hes not human any more, for one thing. Therefore, Moondragon's age isnt a factor.
Oops my bad, someone already addressed this.
Or they could just have a 40 year old actor playing a 40 year old character
But Star-Lord isn't a 40 year old.
He should be mid-30's at least. Marvel's really guitared about the ages of their characters, sometimes. It's as if they refuse to have any of their characters be 30 or over even though it makes no logical sense for them to be younger.
Star-Lord makes far more sense as a character who's got a lot of mileage on him and has lots of experience, has made awful mistakes, and has spent years regretting those mistakes. That fits someone who's 35-45 far more than someone who's a 29-year-old.
Just cast someone in their mid-thirties... how hard is that? It allows him room for sequels and keeps him nicely "weathered." That's why I chose Jared Padalecki, he's old enough and young enough, rough-looking and handsome.
No one said he was 29; he's 32. I'd rather have a slightly younger actor, who won't be breaking his ankle during filming because he's too old to do stunts.
I think John Krasinski would be a great Star-Lord; at the time of release, he'd be 34.
No one said he was 29; he's 32. I'd rather have a slightly younger actor, who won't be breaking his ankle during filming because he's too old to do stunts.