The Loki Thread

[bunk]

A cast full to the brim with two unknowns

Overflowing with two unknowns.

 

[Chewy]

Yeah, and with Thor and Loki being so young, I think that maybe they could get a younger Odin as well, like, say, Liam Neeson (I know it won't happen, he's already Zeus in Clash of the Titans, isn't it?).

If they're going young with Odin they may want to consider Robert Pattinson

 

[Canis Sapiens]

If they're going young with Odin they may want to consider Robert Pattinson

Or Zack Efron.

 

[Chewy]

Using advanced CGI technology they could probably cast both

 

[Canis Sapiens]

LOL! True.

 

[Gallagher]

Oh please they're both too old. Dakota Fanning ftw.

 

[Canis Sapiens]

Dakota Fanning is Hela. On a second thought, with a fake beard, it could work.

 

[Gallagher]

CGI BEARDS! It shall be done.

 

[Balthus Dire]

That guy seems like he'll be a great Loki. So we've got a great Thor and a great Loki....hopefully this awesome casting continues!!

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'll say this much: casting two unknowns in the two leading roles in a movie as big as Thor shows that Marvel and Branagh must have a lot of faith in the material, and a lot of confidence that the film will be good enough to sell itself.

That said, it's still a risky move. A big part of the appeal of both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk for me were those impressive ensemble casts. At the time it was the actors that were in fact the main draw of those movies for me, I'd pay to see any movie on the strength of those casts alone. So abandoning that winning formula now is a gamble.

But on the plus side, casting unknowns as Thor and Loki means you have the movie led by two young, hungry talents, who rather than coasting on established greatness, will be motivated to give their all here, and could very well deliver the best performances of their respective (short) careers with their performances in this film.

 

[Canis Sapiens]

I'm with you, Keyser.

 

[He-Man]

Don't think they need Big names for this movie. With the movie being set in Asgard.....Live Action-Fantasy Movies usually do good at the box office. Not counting the big wigs like LOTR and the Harry Potter movies

Prince Caspian didn't do great in the US but still did $419mil world wide

The Golden Compass did $372mil world wide

Hell even crappy Eragon did $249mil world wide.

With the right story, look, and marketing this movie will be just fine.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Hiddleston looks good for Loki. There's something vaguely creepy about his eyes even in his normal pictures. Imagine how creepy he'll be when he's actually trying.

 

[bunk]

I'll say this much: casting two unknowns in the two leading roles in a movie as big as Thor shows that Marvel and Branagh must have a lot of faith in the material, and a lot of confidence that the film will be good enough to sell itself.

That said, it's still a risky move. A big part of the appeal of both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk for me were those impressive ensemble casts. At the time it was the actors that were in fact the main draw of those movies for me, I'd pay to see any movie on the strength of those casts alone. So abandoning that winning formula now is a gamble.

But on the plus side, casting unknowns as Thor and Loki means you have the movie led by two young, hungry talents, who rather than coasting on established greatness, will be motivated to give their all here, and could very well deliver the best performances of their respective (short) careers with their performances in this film.

I agree. There's also so extra money to be spent on some badass frost giants or something.

Don't think they need Big names for this movie. With the movie being set in Asgard.....Live Action-Fantasy Movies usually do good at the box office. Not counting the big wigs like LOTR and the Harry Potter movies

Prince Caspian didn't do great in the US but still did $419mil world wide

The Golden Compass did $372mil world wide

Hell even crappy Eragon did $249mil world wide.

With the right story, look, and marketing this movie will be just fine.

Fantasy movies do seem pretty lucrative at the moment. But let's not forget that all of those movies are based off of novels with worldwide popularity.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Star Trek had an almost completely unknown primary cast and they did just fine.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Star Trek had an almost completely unknown primary cast and they did just fine.

Not really. I at least had heard of all the Enterprise's crew except for Uhura. I hadn't seen Chris Pine or Anton Yelchin act, but had heard of their work in Smokin' Aces and Charlie Bartlett respectively. Zachary Quinto is well-known as Sylar, and Karl Urban was in Lord of the Rings and the Bourne Supremacy. John Cho was Harold in Harold & Kumar and introduced "MILF" into the cultural lexicon in American Pie. And Simon Pegg is like a national hero here in the UK, and has gained a cult US following in the wake of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

 

[Gallagher]

Star Trek had an almost completely unknown primary cast and they did just fine.

Yes but Star Trek is widely known to the general public, Thor isn't.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Yes but Star Trek is widely known to the general public, Thor isn't.

Maybe Thor as a Marvel character isn't, but the mythology behind Thor I would hope is more well known than Star Trek. But I do see what you mean.

I still don't think the cast is going to matter. I love when they cast unknowns; a good movie sells itself and shouldn't rely on big actors to sell it.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Not really. I at least had heard of all the Enterprise's crew except for Uhura. I hadn't seen Chris Pine or Anton Yelchin act, but had heard of their work in Smokin' Aces and Charlie Bartlett respectively. Zachary Quinto is well-known as Sylar, and Karl Urban was in Lord of the Rings and the Bourne Supremacy. John Cho was Harold in Harold & Kumar and introduced "MILF" into the cultural lexicon in American Pie. And Simon Pegg is like a national hero here in the UK, and has gained a cult US following in the wake of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

Yea they are definitely not as unknown as most make them out to be, but they are definitely a group of actors you wouldnt think they would entrust with a pricey summer tentpole. To me it proves nothing. I mean Star Trek looked good, already had a cult following, and was getting plenty of good buzz leading up to it that they didnt need the most famous people to market. I dont think there is a trend that works because I feel like I could have said the same thing about Watchmen but that isnt going to be as profitable as Star Trek. There is no sure fire way to go unknown or known other than the fact that if Will Smith or someone like him is doing your movie you will be able to make a little more money than you should, but no way will that equal "instant success"

 

[Keyser Soze]

Generally speaking, I prefer movies with ensemble casts over movies with actors I'm unfamiliar with. But that said, there's no reason Thor can't succeed with an unknown cast. It all depends on the marketing. If you just focus on selling the character, and the world, then there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Yes but Star Trek is widely known to the general public, Thor isn't.

Outside the comic audience they at least have some metalheads and history buffs, I'm sure. As a Marvel summer tentpole piggybacking on Iron Man for the Avengers crossover, I'm sure it will gain some attention.

 

[Project862006]

300 made 456MIllion world wide and it was rated r with all no names and was not a hugely popular gn

 

[louiebling$]

It'd be ironic if Tom Hiddleston were to be cast as Loki, as when he was rumored for Thor, everyone was saying he was a much better fit for Loki.

i was just about to post this

 

[louiebling$]

300 made 456MIllion world wide and it was rated r with all no names and was not a hugely popular gn

Good point

 

[The Avatar]

no manips yet?