Detective Conan
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 17,574
- Reaction score
- 25,257
- Points
- 103
Does he really?He's got some big shoes to fill.
![]()
That's Clancy Brown and Michael Rosenbaun erasure.Does he really?
Did they? Kelsey came firstMarvel disrespected Hoult by bringing Kelsey Grammer as Beast and now they will now what happens when you disrespect Nic Hoult.
Fun Fact: James Woods and Clancy Brown have played Hades and Luthor. Disney's Hades was meant to be like Luthor's particularly Gene Hackman's take.That's Clancy Brown and Michael Rosenbaun erasure.
"Alright Hoult you know how you lost out on the Superman role? Now you jealous-hate it."
They choose Kelsey over him. It was very disrespectful.Did they? Kelsey came first
Hoult has done a bunch of great roles, some of which make it super obvious why he was cast here (The Great for instance). I am so confused by people’s perception of Hoult.Yeah not my first choice either but well, we'll see if this is the role that finally showcases whatever it is that studio people keep seeing on him to try to push him for big roles. I will say he does look good bald.
Hoult has done a bunch of great roles, some of which make it super obvious why he was cast here (The Great for instance). I am so confused by people’s perception of Hoult.
Eh, I think Hoult was a fascinating choice for Reeves specific version of Batman and would’ve been my choice for Clark off the shortlist (not broadly, I don’t think it was a very good shortlist) simply because he’s an interesting, bold choice for a character plagued by lazy casting (and because I think he can do warm very well and would nail the Kent side of things). Luthor is the most obvious fit, but the least intriguing.Hoult is a capable actor. But in the case of both Batman and Superman, it was always kinda obvious that he just wasn't the right guy for that part. Had he landed either role, I'm sure he would have been alright- but not the absolute best choice available. IMO Hoult tends to shine way more with zanier, somewhat quirky roles.
I'm quite happy with Hoult as Lex. I didn't particularly want him as Batman or Superman and don't think those roles suit his strengths, even if he could do a half-decent job. Totally agreed, if you want the best out of him you give him more off-the-wall material to work with. A complex Lex could be good for him, and I think Gunn is going to give him the material he needs to be a huge hit as the character.Hoult is a capable actor. But in the case of both Batman and Superman, it was always kinda obvious that he just wasn't the right guy for that part. Had he landed either role, I'm sure he would have been alright- but not the absolute best choice available. IMO Hoult tends to shine way more with zanier, somewhat quirky roles.
He always comes across as very very weasely and weak to me, which I don't necessarily associate with Luthor. I can't really picture him walking onto a room full of executives and instantly commanding it, which is something that I tend to associate with Luthor.Hoult has done a bunch of great roles, some of which make it super obvious why he was cast here (The Great for instance). I am so confused by people’s perception of Hoult.
I can see that, but I also suspect Gunn is going for a very particular preening unhinged narcissist quality. There’s a bunch of commonalities between the Skarsbrothers and Hoult. Morrison’s Luthor where he’s a serious character but also a source of comedy from the depths of his narcissism and delusion feels closest to what Gunn would go for and the actors up for it.He always comes across as very very weasely and weak to me, which I don't necessarily associate with Luthor. I can't really picture him walking onto a room full of executives and instantly commanding it, which is something that I tend to associate with Luthor.
Exactly.Does he really?