Official Thor Casting Thread

[Wolvieboy17]

I know, the audacity of suggesting an actor play more than one role.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Of all the nerve.

 

[Steve Holt]

that son of a B lol

 

[Gamma Goliath]

hmmm, im confused on how this movies story will work out, im a big marvel comic reader but i not a huge thor buff.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

huge thor buff.

Three words that just go together well.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Lol, okay...I get it.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Oh dear . I like the man but casting him as Odin is going to further ruin immersion. Same thing that happened with Ian Mckellen, "Oh look it's Magne..Gandalf." . Don't tell me they can't find a decent and lesser known actor who also looks the part.

That's an interesting take. I'll admit that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say they were distracted by Mckellen appearing as those two characters. I personally thought he was so good in both that it never occurred to me once while watching either series.

I'm very excited about Hopkins. I find his overall demeanor to be perfect for how I personally view Odin. I'm also not upset that his inclusion will lend the film even more "sophistication". It never hurts to have critics willing to like a movie before they ever see a frame of it. And the general public likes Hopkins as well.

To your point, I highly doubt his performance will remind anyone of Hannible Lecter.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Someone saying "Oh look it's Magne..Gandalf." , is like saying ''Oh look, it's Han Sol......Indiana Jones.''

It seems dumb that I should have to type this, but most actors play various characters across their career. To reason that they shouldnt play one because they've already played another is really kinda weak.

By and large, I dont really need an actor to be an unknown just to be able to buy their believability in a role; once the cinema lights go down and the curtain open, past roles should be immaterial and a performance should be judged for what it is, not on anything external.

When I think of the iconic character interpretations that some actors have given us over the ages, I shudder to think on how many we, the audience, would have been deprived of had the above closed minded 'restriction' ever been applied.

Sorry Aeltri, but it kinda looks like you're in the minority on this one.

 

[BigSams50]

Three words that just go together well.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Someone saying "Oh look it's Magne..Gandalf." , is like saying ''Oh look, it's Han Sol......Indiana Jones.''

It seems dumb that I should have to type this, but most actors play various characters across their career. To reason that they shouldnt play one because they've already played another is really kinda weak.

By and large, I dont really need an actor to be an unknown just to be able to buy their believability in a role; once the cinema lights go down and the curtain open, past roles should be immaterial and a performance should be judged for what it is, not on anything external.

When I think of the iconic character interpretations that some actors have given us over the ages, I shudder to think on how many we, the audience, would have been deprived of had the above closed minded 'restriction' ever been applied.

Sorry Aeltri, but it kinda looks like you're in the minority on this one.

I agree Bri. That sort of mentality is ridiculous I think.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Cheers mate.

Thankfully, it's a mentality that's in the minority.

 

[WillardNation]

I agree Bri. That sort of mentality is ridiculous I think.

Agreed

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Someone saying "Oh look it's Magne..Gandalf." , is like saying ''Oh look, it's Han Sol......Indiana Jones.''

It seems dumb that I should have to type this, but most actors play various characters across their career. To reason that they shouldnt play one because they've already played another is really kinda weak.

By and large, I dont really need an actor to be an unknown just to be able to buy their believability in a role; once the cinema lights go down and the curtain open, past roles should be immaterial and a performance should be judged for what it is, not on anything external.

When I think of the iconic character interpretations that some actors have given us over the ages, I shudder to think on how many we, the audience, would have been deprived of had the above closed minded 'restriction' ever been applied.

Sorry Aeltri, but it kinda looks like you're in the minority on this one.

I went through and did a little checklist in my head of some of my favorite actors. And they all played a lot of different characters over their careers.

Should John Wayne not have been cast as Rooster Cogburn because he played Ethan Edwards in The Searchers?
How about James Stewart in Rear Window because he did It's a Wonderful Life?
Bogart in African Queen because he did Casablanca?
Cary Grant in North by Northwest because he did Bringing Up Baby?

The good ones can do what they want...we go along for the ride. Surely Hopkins has the chops to play this character well.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Exactly, JKD.

 

[Webhead2006]

yup agree there.

 

[Carlo Comicus]

Actor Joshua Cox have a role in "Thor".

 

[Aeltri]

Cheers mate.

Thankfully, it's a mentality that's in the minority.

Which is rather unfortunate, really . The epitome of stupidity is to simply go along with popular opinion without questioning anything. It seems like some forum members are keen to paint me as some rabid AH hater when all I am saying is that they could have made a better casting choice .

Someone saying "Oh look it's Magne..Gandalf." , is like saying ''Oh look, it's Han Sol......Indiana Jones.''

To be perfectly honest Ian McKellen is a mild example, AH has outdone him and not in a good way either. Has anyone even bothered to count the similar roles AH has in gotten in big budget films? I lost track . Can you imagine what landing the role of Odin would have meant to an old underappreciated thespian who thought he was never going to get his big break? Yes AH does his job well and he needs work but come on people. Have the man do more voice overs then! I mean, don't other actors need work as well? Actors that are just as talented but perhaps not as well connected? That's what the audience is for, to help make things a bit fairer for everyone. But in order to do so we need to speak up and put our money where our mouth is. Why is it that the same people get the choicest parts time and time again? It's more tolerable when a film is based on an original screenplay or concept (ie Han Solo and Indiana Jones), not so much when a film is based on an actual novel or in this case a comic book. Those who have read it don't want to see a bunch of movie stars acting like their favorite characters. They want to pretend like they are looking at the real thing! It's a total immersion breaker. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? I strongly support theater and acting in general, as an artform first and foremost which is why it saddens me to see this degree of complacency .

 

[Brian Braddock]

Hmmm, I get what your'e saying but I dont agree. Have you ever stopped to think that the reason these actors get cast over and over again is because they are proven to be good in those kind of roles?

I mean, why shouldnt an actor be utilised in a role if they fit that role to a 't'? To use an exteme analogy, it's kinda like saying a one-legged albino dwarf shouldnt play a one-legged albino dwarf character because the casting would be 'too obvious'.

Some people may call it 'lazy' or, as you put it 'complacent', casting but to others, it just makes sense. Not everything has to be outside the box thinking.

I kinda feel sorry that you are so hung up on it to be honest. While we're in the cinema revelling in the movie and the performances, you'll be 'saddened'.

It's a shame.

And anyway, it makes sense that Marvel have gone with Hopkins as they need a big name in there somewheres, given that the lead and the villain are relative unknowns. They were never going to cast an 'old underappreciated thespian who thought he was never going to get his big break'.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

It seems like some forum members are keen to paint me as some rabid AH hater when all I am saying is that they could have made a better casting choice .

I personally believed the latter.

To be perfectly honest Ian McKellen is a mild example, AH has outdone him and not in a good way either. Has anyone even bothered to count the similar roles AH has in gotten in big budget films? I lost track . Can you imagine what landing the role of Odin would have meant to an old underappreciated thespian who thought he was never going to get his big break? Yes AH does his job well and he needs work but come on people. Have the man do more voice overs then! I mean, don't other actors need work as well? Actors that are just as talented but perhaps not as well connected? That's what the audience is for, to help make things a bit fairer for everyone. But in order to do so we need to speak up and put our money where our mouth is. Why is it that the same people get the choicest parts time and time again? It's more tolerable when a film is based on an original screenplay or concept (ie Han Solo and Indiana Jones), not so much when a film is based on an actual novel or in this case a comic book. Those who have read it don't want to see a bunch of movie stars acting like their favorite characters. They want to pretend like they are looking at the real thing! It's a total immersion breaker. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? I strongly support theater and acting in general, as an artform first and foremost which is why it saddens me to see this degree of complacency .

I suppose we will always have the risk of having talented people that don't get the big break. That's a common deal in music too. Luck has as much to do with it as talent. It probably is a form of laziness as in going with a "known quantity" instead of taking a risk. (There is a lot of money involved here...it's easy for us to insist other people should risk their money. t: )

I honestly don't think AH is a big enough name to be a distraction. Someone like Tom Cruise...yeah...that would be tough to pull off. But AH seems easy to digest as different characters...not to mention the big ole beard...that's huge. (figuratively and literally)

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Which is rather unfortunate, really . The epitome of stupidity is to simply go along with popular opinion without questioning anything. It seems like some forum members are keen to paint me as some rabid AH hater when all I am saying is that they could have made a better casting choice .



To be perfectly honest Ian McKellen is a mild example, AH has outdone him and not in a good way either. Has anyone even bothered to count the similar roles AH has in gotten in big budget films? I lost track . Can you imagine what landing the role of Odin would have meant to an old underappreciated thespian who thought he was never going to get his big break? Yes AH does his job well and he needs work but come on people. Have the man do more voice overs then! I mean, don't other actors need work as well? Actors that are just as talented but perhaps not as well connected? That's what the audience is for, to help make things a bit fairer for everyone. But in order to do so we need to speak up and put our money where our mouth is. Why is it that the same people get the choicest parts time and time again? It's more tolerable when a film is based on an original screenplay or concept (ie Han Solo and Indiana Jones), not so much when a film is based on an actual novel or in this case a comic book. Those who have read it don't want to see a bunch of movie stars acting like their favorite characters. They want to pretend like they are looking at the real thing! It's a total immersion breaker. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? I strongly support theater and acting in general, as an artform first and foremost which is why it saddens me to see this degree of complacency .

Speak for yourself. I've read about half of the Thor comics Marvel's ever published and am currently working on reading the other half, and I'm quite happy with Anthony Hopkins' being cast as Odin. I think he'll do a great job and I very much doubt he'll ruin my sense of immersion simply because I recognize him as Anthony Hopkins. I recognized Tony Stark as RDJ and still loved Iron Man. I recognized Bruce Wayne as Christian Bale and still loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I really think you're blowing the fact that Hopkins has a career and won't be crystallized in our memories solely as Odin for all time way out of proportion.

And, like I said earlier, Thor will be a summer blockbuster. Those aren't exactly the ideal place to support the art of acting. There's an enormous financial element to them that makes solely casting based on acting prowess impossible. We all knew there would be trade-offs between whatever our ideal cast would be and the actors the people who are actually spending their money on the film would choose. Frankly, I'm not too happy that Natalie Portman's in the film, but she's a recognizable name that will increase the likelihood of asses filling theater seats. Same deal with Hopkins. If people are complacent about it, it's only because we've managed to accept that that's the reality of how big blockbuster movies work.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The fact with casting such a movie is that having name actors will hel selling the movie to a wider audience. Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman brought lots of people to see the Donner Superman and many were intrigued by the idea of Nicholson as the Joker and went to see '89 Batman.
A movie with a God in a red cape that ends up in the modern world is an hard sell to the general audience, so a name actor certainly will help.
Snyder thought he could avoid this kind of casting in Watchmen and I think that's the main reason why the movie underperformed.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

The fact with casting such a movie is that having name actors will hel selling the movie to a wider audience. Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman brought lots of people to see the Donner Superman and many were intrigued by the idea of Nicholson as the Joker and went to see '89 Batman.
A movie with a God in a red cape that ends up in the modern world is an hard sell to the general audience, so a name actor certainly will help.

Maybe, in 1989. Things are a little different now, you don't NEED a massive celebrity to sell a brand, especially when its a big name. I still think for the Spider-Man movies, they pretty much could have cast anyone and it still would have done well.

Snyder thought he could avoid this kind of casting in Watchmen and I think that's the main reason why the movie underperformed.

It's also the thing that gave the movie credibility and believability :P

 

[Wolvieboy17]

The fact with casting such a movie is that having name actors will hel selling the movie to a wider audience. Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman brought lots of people to see the Donner Superman and many were intrigued by the idea of Nicholson as the Joker and went to see '89 Batman.
A movie with a God in a red cape that ends up in the modern world is an hard sell to the general audience, so a name actor certainly will help.

Maybe, in 1989. Things are a little different now, you don't NEED a massive celebrity to sell a brand, especially when its a big name. I still think for the Spider-Man movies, they pretty much could have cast anyone and it still would have done well.

Snyder thought he could avoid this kind of casting in Watchmen and I think that's the main reason why the movie underperformed.

It's also the thing that gave the movie credibility and believability :P

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Maybe, in 1989. Things are a little different now, you don't NEED a massive celebrity to sell a brand, especially when its a big name. I still think for the Spider-Man movies, they pretty much could have cast anyone and it still would have done well.

You're right, the Spider-Man brand name could probably have sold the movie regardless of who was cast. But, sad though it may be, Thor isn't as popular as Spider-Man. Mention that Thor's getting a movie to your average moviegoer and you'll probably get a blank stare or outright indifference. So Thor probably does need to have a few big names to sell the film to a wider audience than just us mooks who read his comics.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

You're right, the Spider-Man brand name could probably have sold the movie regardless of who was cast. But, sad though it may be, Thor isn't as popular as Spider-Man. Mention that Thor's getting a movie to your average moviegoer and you'll probably get a blank stare or outright indifference. So Thor probably does need to have a few big names to sell the film to a wider audience than just us mooks who read his comics.

But it's not JUST Thor, its being tied in with the avengers, so its going to also have all the follow on hype from Iron Man 1 and 2 (after all, who knows how many references to avengers, cap or Thor will be in IM 2) and Hulk... Marvel have planned the whole thing brilliantly, so it's basically just one big publicity snowball... I only think they suffered by not having a marvel movie this year, but by the time Iron man 2 comes out next year, Thor will have started or be close to filming, so hype will start to build, and theyll have cast Cap by then, so everything will start coming together... Pretty exciting really.