http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20385926_20437910_9,00.html
I don't know how I missed that this was going to be the cover story for Entertainment Weekly this week. It was a nice surprise checking the mail on Saturday and seeing Cap on the cover.
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
Replies
I also don't like that star Chris Evans had to be wined and dined into taking the role. If studios weren't so insistent on a "big name" then they could have found somebody who actually WANTED the role. (I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just don't understand how any thespian below the highest level--say, Nicholson--can turn down a role just because they don't feel like it.)
So, that's me being grouchy. I was excited about the movie and now I'm not. Darn it.
Because their roles are their brands, especially if it's a starring role; you never know which one is going to be the one that sticks with public perception, and that will affect the types of roles they get offered in the future, how they'll be perceived in auditions, and etc.
George Clooney once explained in an interview that, after Batman & Robin, he realized that if he wanted to do work he was proud of, it required more than just showing up and saying his lines, it involved paying attention to the product he was attaching himself to and making sure it was something that he thought was quality on every level. Sure, Chris Evans isn't a Clooney-level star, but he's not a starving artist either. And if he WANTS to be a Clooney-level star, it's responsible of him towards his career to seek out projects he's convinced on the quality of.
I'm still looking forward to the film. I liked what pictures I saw of it. Now I want some more info on the Thor film since it debuts before Cap.
As for Evans, I hardly this he's a big name -- it's just that 9 movies is an enormous commitment. Marvel is really breaking ground in order to make its movies consistent. Which is great, until a movie bombs, and they have to buy (or wait) the actor out of his contract before they can make another movie with that character.
BTW, is Bucky in the movie?
Alan M. is right, but I'll add this: Studios are sometimes insistent on a "big name" because sometimes it's the big name that brings in the customers. Sometimes the concept, like Harry Potter or James Bond, is the star, and one can live with unknowns in the leads so long as they look right and don't bump into the furniture. But who cares if the actor actually WANTED the role if he somebody who can't draw an audience?
Moreover, who cares if the actor actually WANTED the role if he's not right for the part? Case in point: Eric Stoltz on Back to the Future, who was famously replaced after six weeks of shooting because his Marty McFly was too dour and dramatic. Michael J. Fox, who provided a lighter touch, was brought in, and the rest is history.
But even then, Michael J. Fox wasn't committed to NINE movies. I think that's a legitimate reason to be wary of signing on the dotted line. For example, none of the guys who played James Bond made that many films, and the two who did the most, Sean Connery and Roger Moore (seven each), ached to do something else.
In an industry--acting as a whole, not just movies--where you can be a hot commodity one year and on the dog heap the next, a nine picture commitment sounds terrific. Who wouldn't want a guaranteed paycheck for a job in their chosen line of work for the next nine years? (I'll admit that my chosen line of work--being a full time dad--does have a multi-year guarantee but no paycheck, just hugs & kisses.)
"But who cares if the actor actually WANTED the role if he somebody who can't draw an audience?"
I don't go to a movie because of who is in it. I'll be happy if somebody I like is involved but I'm in it for the story, not the actor. I'll presume that the person hired is going to do a good job until I see otherwise*. Case in point: Chris Evans. Never heard of him before Fantastic Four but he was great. Same for Ioan Gruffudd (and yes, I did have to look that name up). Throw in Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon who were pretty well known on TV but not box office draws. Even Jessica Alba was still more known for TV work than movies at that point.
Would Fantastic Four have had a better box office with George Clooney (Mr. Fantastic), Brad Pitt (Human Torch), and Dwayne Johnson (Thing)? It's possible. I admit it. Would it have been a better movie? Oh, heavens no.
And it isn't like having a big name is any kind of guarantee of success. Daredevil (Ben Affleck), Elektra (Jennifer Garner), Catwoman (Hallie Berry), Batman & Robin (George Clooney & Chris O'Donnell & Alicia Silverstone & ...) --all those had huges names in lead roles and were critically and popularly dumped on because the movies just weren't well made.
"Moreover, who cares if the actor actually WANTED the role if he's not right for the part?"
Of course there are people who want roles that they aren't right for. That's part of why there are auditions. Raymond Burr auditioned for Hamilton Burger, not Perry Mason. Charisma Carpenter auditioned for the role of Buffy but ended up as Cordelia (after someone else turned down that role!). Just imagine if Sean Young had won her bid to be Catwoman in Batman Returns. And there are (depending on the character) tens or hundreds or even thousands of people who covet a role that aren't right for it and don't even make it to the audition stage.
The Back to the Future example is a bad one because it is an incredibly rare example of casting gone wrong and being caught in the filmmaking stage (as opposed to after the release). The only other example I can think of where something similar has happened would be Genevieve Bujold quitting the role of Captain Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager almost as soon as filming began.
"And if he WANTS to be a Clooney-level star, it's responsible of him towards his career to seek out projects he's convinced on the quality of."
That's a heckuva gamble. Most actors, even successful ones, just aren't going to make it that big. It makes me think of Let's Make a Deal. "Now, you already have five thousand dollars OR you can take what's in this box. Might be twenty thousand. Might be a box of Kleenex." A lot of people end up with that metaphorical box of Kleenex. Even normal (non-thespian) types can pack up their family, sell their house, and move across country for a job that disappears when they arrive there. Risk isn't just Starfleet's business**, it's the acting business. So I understand Evans' reasons for being wary even if I don't agree with it.
What I don't understand is the producers insisting on someone who doesn't want the job. According to the article, Evans said "No" three times. Three. Times. Geez Louise, even my eight year old knows that after the third "No" he shouldn't bother asking again. Move on, I say, if they need a "name," to Milo Ventimiglia or Chris Pine. OK, Chris Pine may have scheduling conflicts due to Star Trek sequels but he's still a good example of someone who could do justice to the role of Captain America. Chris Hemsworth, who you've probably never heard of, looks the part of Captain America...but he's busy being Thor. My first choice for Captain America, based on his performance as Racer X in Speed Racer, would have been Matthew Fox.
The article in Entertainment Weekly does say that Evans wasn't even on their original "wish list" and they "tested" (which I presume means auditioned) actors such as Channing Tatum, John Krasinski, and Ryan Phillippe before even considering Evans. For all I know, they spoke with Ventimiglia, Pine, Hemsworth, and Fox before Evens eventually signed on.
All that being said, I expect Chris Evans will be as great as Cap as he was as the Torch***. Since the 1960s, Marvel heroes have been known for having feet of clay. Perhaps it is just appropriate that the actor playing Cap has feet of clay, too.
* There are actors and directors, some of which are very popular, that will make me avoid films I might otherwise see.
** Please, oh please, someone understand that reference besides me.
*** Alex, the above mentioned eight year old, wants to know how it is going to work to have the same actor playing Captain America and the Human Torch since, of course (to him), they have to meet. Ah, bless my little boy. Without going into studio politics, I told him that they won't be in movies together, just comics.
PS Oh, good grief. I've been typing this for over an hour. I hope it didn't ramble on too much.
Some points of agreeable disagreement:
Cavalier said:
I can see that. Filmmaking is by its very nature episodic; you work on a project, complete it, and work on the next project. And a nine-picture commitment may very well prevent you from being available for other projects that might be better for your career/artistic temperament/personal needs.
For one example, Tom Selleck didn't get to star in Raiders of the Lost Ark because he couldn't get out of doing Magnum, P.I. That opportunity might have made Selleck an A-list movie star rather than an A-list TV star (which isn't a bad thing, but it isn't the same, either).
Cavalier said:
That's all well and good, but there are plenty of people who do see movies because of who is in it. And actors get to be stars in part because lots of people want to see them in movies, and will choose their movies over other movies that have other actors in them.
Cavalier said:
That goes to the concept being the star over the actor.
Cavalier said:
I don't know. It wouldn't have been the same movie, and it might have been a better movie because better caliber talent often brings along better caliber everything else: scripting, directing, budget, effects. Not always, I'll admit, but often enough. I mean, Inglourious Basterds possibly could have happened without Brad Pitt and Quentin Tarantino, but would it have been the hit it was without them? Doubtful.
Cavalier said:
I can't argue with you there. When you're right, you're right.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next