The Avengers/Marvel movies

I wanna see the trailer to this biopic

siO2uuRl.jpg





and this take on an Ahnold type 80's movie.

yIrl4iYl.jpg
 
mmmcammy said:
Hmmm. I'm still holding out hope for Emily Blunt or Katee Sackhoff. Physically, I can't really picture Brie Larson as Carol, but she's a great actress, so I'm sure she'd be good in the role.
Click to expand...

I never thought about the casting before, but I like the thought of Katee Sackhoff in the role.
 
LetTigerIn said:
I never thought about the casting before, but I like the thought of Katee Sackhoff in the role.
Click to expand...

Oh, she was the internet's immediate choice. She plays bad-ass women who are generally confident, if not cocky, but with actual other emotions underneath.

But while she would probably do well, and she has total geek cred, she probably isn't a "franchise" actress that a studio would trust to hold up a tentpole.

Shame, really.



SackhoffPilot.jpg


katee2-970x545.jpg


e5a9845f696a00b6c5bde39326c597d8.jpg




Captain-Marvel.png
 
Sackhoff is known as a b-level actress, and would be in her late 30's and early 40's over her run as the character.

Only old dudes get to play young in Hollywood. No way in hell do they not go with either an A-lister or young up and comer in that role.
 
yeah, but she would fill the suit out a hellalot better, if ya know what I mean...


At least all that Rhonda Rousey foolishness died with her career.
 
SmytheKing said:
When things like this stop happening, then maybe representation won't matter as much. Until then, it does.
Click to expand...

yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath. And...isn't Easton Ellis pretty much a known douchenozzle? Hollywood is always gonna have Dn's doing Dn things. I think maybe you misunderstood my complaint. I don't care if they hire a gay black female canadian horsethief...I just don't think you need to segregate them into making a 'female' movie, or a 'black' movie, or a horsethief movie. It's well meaning, but almost as sexist/racist in some backdoor kind of way.
 
Mondo Blando said:
Sackhoff is known as a b-level actress, and would be in her late 30's and early 40's over her run as the character.
Click to expand...

That is another reason, yeah. And, like I said, no way, even in her 20's, does she get the role because she isn't the franchise/tentpole name.

But still, kind of a shame, right?
 
jerseydevil said:
yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath. And...isn't Easton Ellis pretty much a known douchenozzle? Hollywood is always gonna have Dn's doing Dn things. I think maybe you misunderstood my complaint. I don't care if they hire a gay black female canadian horsethief...I just don't think you need to segregate them into making a 'female' movie, or a 'black' movie, or a horsethief movie. It's well meaning, but almost as sexist/racist in some backdoor kind of way.
Click to expand...

I know what your point was (why not have them direct any movie? why just xyz demo one?) and I agree. Thing is, Hollywood is FULL of dbags who only want people they know doing things. Unless you give folks who haven't had the chance to do it, they never will. So, when you shoehorn someone into a movie because of their race/gender, two things happen. One, you give them the shot to prove to everyone that they can do it and therefore get more opportunities.

Two, and most importantly, you give that gender/race a voice who can relate to the struggles of that gender/race. The reason we see so many stereotypical and sometimes offensive characters in movies is because they're written by folks who don't know the first thing about that culture. From Charlie Chan to Tonto to those two awful robots in Transformers, Hollywood is littered with these characterizations that reinforce ****ty stereotypes.

It's like when people break out the "why are you shoving this gay stuff in movies about fish?" complaint. Well, when you care about the fish being gay as much as you care about them being straight (i.e., you don't)...then it'll be ok. No one notices that only white guys have directed the X-Men movies. For some reason no one complains about those dudes being shoehorned. To the likely follow up stating that "it's obvious" that they're getting certain directors for certain movies and that in itself is racist/sexist, well...complain about Hollywood not giving them movies for the past 100 years instead of the couple that they are now. That's the real issue I'd say.
 
SmytheKing said:
I know what your point was (why not have them direct any movie? why just xyz demo one?) and I agree. Thing is, Hollywood is FULL of dbags who only want people they know doing things. Unless you give folks who haven't had the chance to do it, they never will. So, when you shoehorn someone into a movie because of their race/gender, two things happen. One, you give them the shot to prove to everyone that they can do it and therefore get more opportunities.

Two, and most importantly, you give that gender/race a voice who can relate to the struggles of that gender/race. The reason we see so many stereotypical and sometimes offensive characters in movies is because they're written by folks who don't know the first thing about that culture. From Charlie Chan to Tonto to those two awful robots in Transformers, Hollywood is littered with these characterizations that reinforce ****ty stereotypes.

It's like when people break out the "why are you shoving this gay stuff in movies about fish?" complaint. Well, when you care about the fish being gay as much as you care about them being straight (i.e., you don't)...then it'll be ok. No one notices that only white guys have directed the X-Men movies. For some reason no one complains about those dudes being shoehorned. To the likely follow up stating that "it's obvious" that they're getting certain directors for certain movies and that in itself is racist/sexist, well...complain about Hollywood not giving them movies for the past 100 years instead of the couple that they are now. That's the real issue I'd say.
Click to expand...

It's all well and good...and I mostly agree. BUT, as I have brought up in other threads, what happens if/when this noble experiment takes a header. Case in point, Ghostbusters. If that fails, are studios going to have the self awareness to realize that there is little interest because it looks shabby, and not because it's a feminine backlash? Or will they course correct the other way. See, that is the problem with having these new voices spearheading the way for their respective gender/race/preference divisions...that's a lot of pressure to put on a fairly inexperienced director. And I get your point...the opportunities are limited. But the cost if they fail is soooo much more acute. Not sure if there is a solution. Just spitballing here.
And as far as your 'stereotype' characters thing...look, let's not let the consumers off the hook. Sometimes these things exist because it seems this is exactly what the public wants. Special interest groups can boycott/protest...but unless people put their wallets away you are still gonna get things that don't always sit well. I mean, there is another Tarzan flick on the way. White man...leading Africa against the colonials...not exactly breaking any glass ceilings.
 
darby said:
That is another reason, yeah. And, like I said, no way, even in her 20's, does she get the role because she isn't the franchise/tentpole name.

But still, kind of a shame, right?
Click to expand...

She's the right type for sure, just past the expiration date.

Brie Larson has that fresh factor - still pliable in the sense that she hasn't been pigeonholed into a type of role, doesn't have a well established personality that would seem to conflict with any type of character, and critic cred based on he Oscar Nod.

Marvel loves Oscar nods. Been at least one in every flick so far. Only question is whether she could handle the physicality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top