Doug and I had a debate on the last installment of The Audio Edition about what was more important in casting an actor for a role… the talent or the look? Don’t get me wrong… Doug wasn’t suggesting a talentless hack was fine as long as they had the right look… nor was I saying a 4’10 fat guy could play He-Man… but given the choice of everything else being equal… but one actor was 5% more the right look… but the other actor had 5% more talent… I say go for talent every time.
A bad look has never ruined a movie… but bad talent does. Let’s look at a couple of examples where the “Look” wasn’t all that important. I’ll start with what is generally regarded by most comic film fans as a successful franchise up till now… the X-Men.
Magneto (Ian McKellen).
As far as pure “look” goes, this is one of the worst casting decisions in history. Magneto is a BIG man, powerful and chiseled out of stone… coming across much younger than McKellen in the comics. Whereas Ian McKellen is much older, sort of frail looking and very small. The only thing that Ian McKellen and Magneto have in common is that they’re both older than 40. But that’s about it.
But having said that… I didn’t hear anyone complain about the Magneto that McKellen brought to life. McKellen was a magnificent Magneto… not because he looked like Magneto (because he didn’t even SLIGHTLY look like him), but rather because McKellen’s talent as an actor brought the character to life. We (as the audience) very quickly forgot that Magneto and McKellen looked NOTHING alike.
Woverine (Hugh Jackman)
I can still remember the uproar and outrage expressed by many many many X-Men fans when they first learned of the casting of Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine. “He’s too tall! He’s not built enough! He doesn’t have the right look!” all these and many things more were said about the Aussie actor. “X-Men will suck!” angry fans cried out. Well… they were all wrong.
No, Jackman does not have the natural look of Wolverine. But his fantastic acting talent projected the Wolverine character in a way that many people didn’t think was possible. You just knew that you were indeed looking at Wolverine… even though there wasn’t a lot of physical likeness to the character in the comic book. Thank goodness Brian Synger also decided to ditch the yellow spandex outfit.
Sabertooth (Tyler Mane)
Tyler Mane as Sabertooth was probably the best casting in the X-Men as far as just pure “look” goes. I thought (and many… but not all… agree with me) he LOOKED as close to perfect as you could get for a live action version of Sabertooth. However… as I’ve been trying to argue… looking the part doesn’t really mean much it they’re not the right person for the role.
Mane looked like Sabertooth alright… but he wasn’t even an actor. He was horrible in the X-Men film and didn’t really bring anything to the screen. The story goes that they actually edited out a few of his lines just because he was so bad. I guess having the look doesn’t make up for lack of talent after all.
Batman (Michael Keaton)
The X-Men weren’t the only comic franchise with some controversy when it came to casting for “look”. Way back when Tim Burton decided to go with Michael Keaton to play the Dark Knight, comic fans almost rioted in the streets. Batman is the most physically perfect human being alive. As physically strong as any human can be without superpowers… a giant of a man… huge in height and muscle bulk. He is a warrior poet, the great detective… and he’ll beat the living piss out of you just for fun (he’s always in such a bad mood). Michael Keaton… not so much.
And yet, Keaton was strong in Batman. So much so that he won just about everyone over to his side and many of those who were crying out when he was cast ended up crying out when it was announced that he wasn’t coming back to do the third film.
The same could be said for Christian Bale. Yeah, the guy is in pretty decent shape… and has dark hair… but in terms of physical stature he’s NOTHING compared to the Batman. Face it… he’s too short (since when is Alfred twice as big as Batman????) and just not strong enough to really be the Dark Knight. And yet… Christian Bale was MAGNIFICENT in Batman Begins and almost universally people praised his performance.
Conclusion:
I could go on and on with the positive and negative examples of where the “look” didn’t mean anything… but you get my point. Having the right performance can easily make up for not having the right look. Having the right look can’t make up for not having the right performance.
All other things being equal, go for the look. If two actors are equal in talent and you believe equal in the performance they can give, then by all means go for the guy who LOOKS more the part. But other than that… in my books talent and performance should win out every time. That’s my two cents worth.
Give us your thoughts in the comments section.
**As a side note, I’ve asked Doug to write a rebuttal article… look for it on Monday or Tuesday sometime.**
Talent may take a while to shine through, but nobody can take it away thereafter. Whoopi Goldberg certainly didn’t get accolades for her looks, but god, her talent, is it for real? There’s a lot beneath the surface that counts in a field like entertainment. Looks do get you noticed quickly alright. But in the short run. If the swan can’t gracefully sway, it’s a dead duck anyday.
>>I prefer hot men over Gollum lookalikes.
Oh right, THE ‘hot man’. Take your pick:
http://www.equitypictures.com/cms/data/0/0/2/146/Pierce_Brosnan_in_The_Matador_1.jpg
or
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2002_Die_Another_Day/DAD_Pierce_Brosnan_019.jpg
Hmm, looks more like the ‘Gollum’ you mentioned above. *shrugs*
Menty, I have no taste all right. I prefer hot men over Gollum lookalikes. Sue me.
Basically it comes down to
How good is the acting
>>I don’t care how old Brosnan is. I’d fuck him over Craig ANY DAY.
Yeah, but you have no taste. Craig is far sexier than Brosnan.
Brian, I googled his name and found his blog – I was snooping for info basically – and he is still posting regularly on his own blog. No, something else is afoot here and the Movie Blog fans demand full disclosure!
matlot, i was wondering the same thing. Where the hell has Richard gone? there isn’t a link to his blog anymore and the MB readers awards still aren’t out! i hope he’s not hurt or something.
Hey guys, where has Richard Branton disappeared to? Have you had an artistic disagreement or something. The nosey movie blog fans have a right to know!!!!
With all due respect to Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Christian Bale is far superior, while Bale doesn’t look like a 6-footer, one must acknolegdge that probably someone that large could probably not move as quickly as Batman does in Batman Begins. Also for someone that’s short beating the living hell out of 6 guys alone is one crazy stunt.
To be Batman in the context of Batman Begins he must not only be strong but also very fast, but also be smart enough to convince your oponnents that you’re something invincible. Christian Bale makes you care about Batman and Bruce Wayne.
“No matter how talented Tom Hanks is, he’ll never play Nelson Mandela.”
True, but they did cast Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing. :)
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of getting the look exactly right, as not getting it hopelessly wrong, (for example, Sean Connery playing King Arthur (who was slight, blonde, and about 18 years old at the time the real events the legend is based on occurred) in First Knight). As long as you get it basically right, the look can be created, particularly by a talented actor (and costume/makeup department). Tom Cruise playing the vampire Lestat is a good example of that. Even Anne Rice conceded that he nailed it.
Nice read, but I still thing Keaton was a god awful Batman and an even worse Bruce Wayne.
Talent will always be more important.
ok i believe that look and talent are equally important but the reason people didnt complain on magneto is because most people dont read the comic books so they have nothin to compare the actor too
I don’t care how old Brosnan is. I’d fuck him over Craig ANY DAY.
How can you tell if an actor is 5% more or less talented than any other actor. That sounds really silly. I don’t think you can put numbers to once general performance. An actor still needs to be conducted by …hum, let me think… A DIRECTOR.
So yeah, we should always take generally talented actors to do movies, but ‘looks’ ARE important. Depending on the project, the part, the director, it should always be an equal of both looks and talent.
On a side note, if you talk about expierence, talent and looks, Pierce Brosnan would still be a better pick than Craig. But he is …what ??…too old . Now, that is crazy.
If two actors are equal in talent and you believe equal in the performance they can give, then by all means go for the guy who LOOKS more the part. But other than that… in my books talent and performance should win out every time.
I agree with that statement in principle but in reality gauging an actor’s talent is subjective. Finding two of equal talent is impossible when its a subjective comparison.
I agree with Cole that Angela Bassett would have been perfect for storm.
When it comes to iconic characters I would prefer they look as much like the original as possible, but not to the point where you get someone who can’t act.
Michael Clark Duncan is a great actor (As seen in The Green Mile), but it was just so cliché to get a black guy to be the main crime boss. A fat (Its all muscle, he is the strongest normal human in the world) white guy was what I wanted from The Kingpin.
… In my opinion a film is different from a stage play on the stage you can have an all Chinese cast playing the white characters of a Shakespeare play and it does not matter as the medium really only calls for acting ability. How ever film is not just about acting, it’s important, but the visual appearance of someone does matter in many cases.
No point in casting a fat guy to play a world class sprinter, acting ability or not no one is going to be able to suspend belief enough to say yeah that guy really is running the hundred in under 10 seconds.
… but yeah 10 minutes into a bond movie if it’s good no one is going to care who’s playing bond. … but yeah 10 minutes into a bond movie if it’s good no one is going to care who’s playing bond as long as he comes across as a fairly suave British guy.
I’ve noticed something from all the comments. It seems that no matter who is cast for any role there will be about 50% of the people who believe someone else should have been cast and 50% who like the casting. This of course applies to comic movies but I believe it also applies to any movie where the character is from some other medium.
Personally I couldn’t care less about look as long as I can believe that the person playing the part is that character (at least during the movie). This comes down to a combination of acting ability but also look.
First, all dismissals of Jessica Alba aside, I do want to comment on Youknow’s comment above: Me and my sisters, having the same mother and father, look nothing alike. Also, it isn’t uncommon for two totally different looking actors to play siblings. That wasn’t the problem with Jessica in FF. Most “fans” to my knowledge, didn’t bitch until AFTER the film came out. Not before.
Many have commented on actors being ‘too old’. To that I say H O R S E S H I T ! ! !
There is a invention called the makeup chair which through Hollywood wonder an actor could look older or younger.
Note: Cyke is not ‘blind’ in the X-Mem films. Never was.
So John Campea ‘bitches’ about this. I’m not sure he has to, but I agree with him. Talent is better than look. When we saw ‘Daredevil’, I personally was devestated because they cast Jennifer Garner, who I thought was overeexposed and overrrated. But I liked her as Elektra.
I liked the film, except for one scene because it didn’t belong in the picture (the over the top schoolyard “flirt” fight) – and I didn’t mind Ben Affleck either. The DC had some better explanations, Coolio wasn’t one of them. Talent is the best casting.
What good does it do if the ‘actor’ cast has the ‘look’ of the character but the film still stinks to high heaven? Does anyone remember an actor by the name of Michael St Gerard?
He was in a short lived TV series back in the early 90’s about the early days of Elvis. He was a horrible actor, but because he looked like Elvis (and even got plastic surgery for the part for good measure!) he got the part.
No, I don’t think John needed to post this topic, he made the point in the Audio Edition.
But it does seem to be out of control. It’s one thing to chew out casting of actors unfairly before you see the finished work. It is something else when you see it.
Everyone has thier baggage. I bet that if Keaton had made a film like “Desperate Measures” – an otherwise silly film- after ‘Clean And Sober’ (a GREAT film that should be re-issued on DVD in a widescreen) not one Batfan would have bitched. Besides, remember Burton’s choice. Now folks put on your thinking caps and recall Guber’s dream pick…no offense to Bill Murray.
– D Sealer out
I think it’s a mix of look and talent. No matter how talented Tom Hanks is, he’ll never play Nelson Mandela.
Hey doug,
For your rebuttle article then here’s a few examples where casting was completely botched. I dont know if you’d use any of them but I’m really anticipating a damn good article to rebutt a non-existant issue. The punchline of course is that you never know if you matched it up until the final product so why the hell wouldn’t people have an opinion based purely on our percieved image of a character.
Mystique/Rebecca Romjin – It completely changed the character. And while the new mystique is hot, you have to admit there was something sexier about the comic Mystique in that white dress even if she was 15 years older.
Storm/Halle Berry – Halle Berry is very attractive but comic storm was a badass who wouldve probably been played better by an Angela Bassett type. Unless they put Storm into a car then nobody is intimidated by Halle Berry.
Sue Storm/Jessica Alba – Hot mexican chick with a whiter than white brother?
Jean Grey/Famke Jansen – Compltely miscast since she looks 15 years older. Cyclops shoots lasers from his eyes but he’s not blind.
Mary Jane/Kristen Dunst – Mary Jane, the hotter than hot redhead model, just happens to have Bob Villa as a dentist? Redheads have more specific personality traits than just having red hair.
Kingpin/Michael Clark Duncan – Its not racist to say that a gigantically fat white guy is infinitely more entertaining to watch fight than a big black guy.
Darth Vader/Heyden Christiansen – I didnt mind it but I’m sure you could think up a few things about that one
Okay, bring on the article. And btw, I hated Thor because I never understood why he has such a tiny little hammer.
You know for now, I can’t think of one female actress that was wrong for the part, with the exception of Jessica Alaba, I think she was wrong for the Fantastic Four’s Invisible Girl, to me, it wasn’t believable that she and Chris Evans (Johnny Storm) were suppose to be brother and sister.
Linda Carter as Wonder Woman, no complaints
Angelina Jolie as Laura Ashcroft, no complaints
Helen Slater as Supergirl, no complaints
oh wait a sec, there was halle berry, i almost forgot, but i don’t consider her a superhero in my book, she (catwoman) was always a villain.
http://youknowhowiknowyourgay.net
I’d have to say looks are important for comic adaptations. I did not like that Anna Paquin played the role of Rogue in X-men. She is a talented actress but all the talent in the world could not change the fact that she was not right for the role.
This is a problem mostly for comic adaptations though. The characters in comics become very iconic and image based so its imortant to have an actor that can at least partially reflect that. In the case of Micheal Keatons Batman it is easy to cover up his differences because you can just slap on a suit with muscles on it and you have an effective illusion.
For other movies it’s obviously not a big factor and is all up to the casting director seeing as how the audience doesn’t have any frame of reference to go by. But for other adaptations like books I’d say that casting can vary a great deal.
How many iterations of Tom Ripley were presented on screen from Patricia Highsmiths books? You have Dennis Hopper and Matt Damon playing the same character and although they are very different looking no one is the wiser because Tom Ripley is not a visual icon.
My only thoughts when reading this article is that “whenever John gets questioned on his opinion then he’ll do anything to try to prove that he is right”. It used to be an endearing part of the movie blog but its really probably the most annoying part of it now.
Anyway, what a completely silly article. These “whining fans” and “people crying out” are found where? Some anonymous marvel comic fanatics forum? These people are the very people at dinner parties that make you intentionally spill wine on your shirt just so you can have an excuse to walk away from them. Yet when it comes time to do an “I told you so” then they’re your prime example?
The truth of the matter is that when casting any popular role then its extremely rare to get an actor/character match with 100% public approval. Kelsey Grammar as Beast? He’s too old, he’s completely out of left field for the part. DiVinci Code asked for a “handsome adventurer type” and they got Tom Hanks??? It sounds nuts until the pictures come out and our brains start realizing that an imperfect fit isn’t so bad. As viewers we just want to be proven wrong with more than just press statements. So if the studio does their job in presenting this deformed version of bond then thats great. But until then, expect people will talk crap.
In the end then the only thing we can guarantee with this is that you’ll continue to present opinions from the comment sections as your own and that in a month or so you’ll return and give us yet another pompous ass “i told you so” where you justify how you were “right” in a situation that could only be answered with time.
BTW. I know this post is a bit harsh but you can blame that on Darren. Ever since you brought him on then he’s exposed what high potential the show has when there’s Doug the funny man paired with a guy who actually knows stuff about movies. The Doug and Darren show. Damn that would be nice.
Now if you’ll excuse me, its not that youre a bore. I just got a bit of wine on my shirt.
“A good article, but you only talk about men. What about women? The rules are in fact different for women. When it comes to casting a women for a role, its almost always about look, except when the movie is a real dramatic piece and just demands talent.” – Mady
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Good one. Movie Blog’s a laugh a minute.
A good article, but you only talk about men. What about women? The rules are in fact different for women. When it comes to casting a women for a role, its almost always about look, except when the movie is a real dramatic piece and just demands talent.
I agree completely. Look is important, but talent is more important. You can have the best movie script ever written, but if the cast can’t act, the movies going to suck.