Casting Captain Marvel

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
votemarvel said:
Silentpony said:
I'm gonna go completely out of left field! Diamond Jackson! Not only older, but African American. And stupid hot.
Not completely out of left field for a black actress to be cast. The second Captain Marvel was Monica Rambeau a lieutenant in the New Orleans Harbour Patrol.

I can understand them wanting to skip Mar-Vell as Captain Marvel, as the MCU is already guy heavy, but why skip straight to the last person to use the code name?

Why not use Phylla-Vell if they absolutely need to skip to a white blonde woman. As Mar-Vell's daughter she would make the name a legacy more than just a code name. Plus she'd let them show that the MCU is gay friendly.

I can't really offer any suggestions of who to cast as Carol Danvers, as I don't want to see her as Captain Marvel in the movies, at least not at this time.
My gut tells me they are not skipping Mar-Vell. In fact he may be entering shooting any day now and will appear before Carol Danvers. I think they are just skipping Mar-Vell's Kree heritage, and making him a Titan Eternal instead. More or less merging Mar-Vell with Starfox. And putting in a direct tie to Thanos. That would let them tie everything together for the Infinity Gauntlet stuff. I think we will find that Mar-Vell is the father of one of our already known characters. Remember we don't know exactly who Kurt Russel is playing yet. My money is on either Mar-Vell or Eros/Starfox. Either way Starlord is half Eternal. That's why he was able to wield the gem.

There are also hints that Monica Rambeau is planned at some point to be brought into the Avengers mix. They will probably use her more modern code name of Spectrum if they name her anything other than Monica at all. She also opens the door for Aaron Stack / Machine Man to come in. Which would be a trip.

If Phylla-Vell shows up anywhere it will be in Guardians as she is/was a member in the comics. I don't see them throwing her or Genus-Vell into the mix anytime soon. Maybe down the road if they keep making Guardians movies.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
elvor0 said:
I dunno about that one, the guys in the marvel movies are all on the middling age side, Downy clocks in at 51. Sackhoff is only 36 and Theron doesn't even look 40. Chris Evens has been there for a while sure, but he's 35 now, 1 year less than Sackhoff and he still made the collective female audiences tingle in Civil War, which I think he would've done even if he'd just been cast.
Again, they don't apply the age rule evenly across the sexes. So while it's perfectly fine to have a middle aged man play a young and vibrant role, the trend in Hollywood seems to be that if you had a woman of the same age bracket as say Robert Downey Jr., she's not going to get the role of an action movie franchise lead. She's just not. She's going to get the role of the "Mom" of that action star. For example, Marrisa Tormei, being the Aunt May to the new Spiderman. I could easily see her playing some role of an action woman, but instead, they gave her the "Mom" role for the 19 year old kid playing Spidey. And while I'm 100% in favor of having her play a younger, hotter Aunt May (love me some MILFS, and love me some Marrisa Tormei specifically), even though she's likely in the same age bracket as Downey, she's just not going to get a role like that.

Now sure, there are exceptions to this, one offs like that Salma Hayek movie where she's a prostitute stuck in a reenactment of The Raid, and Hellen Mirren in the RED and RED 2 movies, but they are without a doubt, the exception that proves the rule.

It sucks that Hollywood thinks that way, but apparently they do.
You make a fair and persuasive argument. And yeah, it sucks.
undeadsuitor said:
elvor0 said:
Anyone fill me in on why Charlize Theron seems to be a fan favourite? I like Theron, just not someone I would've personally thought of as Captain Marvel.
I'm pretty sure it's because her role of Furiosa is still fresh on everyone's minds. girls got action chops like no one else, along with the acting range
.....I haven't seen the new Mad Max yet. I'll just let myself out.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
hermes said:
Lawrence seems so f*cking bored of being in X-Men and Hunger Games I want her out of anything with "popular appeal".
Lawrence isnt "bored" of anything, dude. Singer specifically directs Mystique to show almost no emotion (go back and watch the first two films and youll find Romijn to look equally "bored" during talking scenes), and Katniss is written as being emotionally stunted, meaning that she doesnt convey or understand emotion the way a normal person does. Lawrence is playing those characters precisely as the writing and direction dictates, and they happen to be very similar characters.

Carol Danvers is not like either of those characters, so Lawrence would not play her similarly at all unless the directors asks her to show less emotion. personally, i dont want to see her play the character either, simply because if the character IS poorly written and/or directed, she will take all the heat for simply doing what she is told. i was just providing her as an example of a blonde girl of appropriate age for the character.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Vykrel said:
hermes said:
Lawrence seems so f*cking bored of being in X-Men and Hunger Games I want her out of anything with "popular appeal".
Lawrence isnt "bored" of anything, dude. Singer specifically directs Mystique to show almost no emotion (go back and watch the first two films and youll find Romijn to look equally "bored" during talking scenes), and Katniss is written as being emotionally stunted, meaning that she doesnt convey or understand emotion the way a normal person does. Lawrence is playing those characters precisely as the writing and direction dictates, and they happen to be very similar characters.
I didn't get that feeling with Mystique. Romijn's Mystique was quiet, but she also felt coy and playful in a way that was aware of the sensuality of a woman walking around naked all the time. Lawrence's Mystique just feels off, like all the time she is in front of the camera, she is having an internal monologue, possibly either snearing at her lines, trying her hardest to react seriously to a prop in a green screen, or cursing at her agent for having to do yet another of those movies. I could buy Romijn's character as someone whose main skill is to manipulate and confuse others with her power, but if what we saw was Lawrence's version of that, I can't buy it.

The issue with Mockingjay is that she looks stunned half of the time because the movie is a fairly good adaptation of the books, and there she is stoic, being led by others, and most of her development happens inside her head. Not that I dislike that decision, because if they make her narrate her inner thoughts like Superman or Dune it would have looked extremely silly; but I think she gets typecast as the stoic young badass (it didn't help to differentiate her that in the latest movies, Mystique is some kind of freedom fighters symbol, with posters and nicknames included; and no, comics Mystique has almost nothing in common with Katniss, the changes were made because Lawrence is, by far, their most prominent actress so it makes no sense relegating her to a henchman's role), and I can't distinguish her stoic face from her "just going through the motions" face.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
hermes said:
I didn't get that feeling with Mystique. Romijn's Mystique was quiet, but she also felt coy and playful in a way that was aware of the sensuality of a woman walking around naked all the time.
not really a feeling. what you are talking about are the fight scenes and non-talking moments. go back and watch her dialogue. youll find it is delivered with absolutely zero emotion, as per Singer's direction. except for when she is hissing at people in an exaggerated manner. as poor a job as Ratner did overall with the third film, he allowed Romijn to show more emotion in her final scene than in the previous two films combined.

hermes said:
Lawrence's Mystique just feels off, like all the time she is in front of the camera, she is having an internal monologue, possibly either snearing at her lines, trying her hardest to react seriously to a prop in a green screen, or cursing at her agent for having to do yet another of those movies.
that is projection, man. suggesting that you know what performer might have been thinking about during their performance is not a fair critique.

hermes said:
I could buy Romijn's character as someone whose main skill is to manipulate and confuse others with her power, but if what we saw was Lawrence's version of that, I can't buy it.
that is not what we saw with Lawrence's version. remember, she is playing the young and less confident version of Mystique. you are comparing the two as if they are exactly the same, which they are not. people change over the course of forty years.

hermes said:
but I think she gets typecast as the stoic young badass (it didn't help to differentiate her that in the latest movies, Mystique is some kind of freedom fighters symbol, with posters and nicknames included; and no, comics Mystique has almost nothing in common with Katniss, the changes were made because Lawrence is, by far, their most prominent actress so it makes no sense relegating her to a henchman's role)
this was my first point. Lawrence was saddled with a mediocre role to begin with that would not test her abilities as a performer, then Singer came on and provided her with even worse direction, and her career trajectory resulted in the writing for her character being mishandled. like i was saying before, she has been stuck with a bad character, bad direction, and bad material. any actor stuck with these things is not going to be able to give a noteworthy performance; there is simply too much holding the performer back.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Vykrel said:
hermes said:
Lawrence's Mystique just feels off, like all the time she is in front of the camera, she is having an internal monologue, possibly either snearing at her lines, trying her hardest to react seriously to a prop in a green screen, or cursing at her agent for having to do yet another of those movies.
that is projection, man. suggesting that you know what performer might have been thinking about during their performance is not a fair critique.
It probably is. Still not sure if it is a bad thing, though. The job of an actor is selling me on their performance. Projecting is a very normal thing in their craft, it implies empathy... and all she projected into me was boredom.
Vykrel said:
hermes said:
I could buy Romijn's character as someone whose main skill is to manipulate and confuse others with her power, but if what we saw was Lawrence's version of that, I can't buy it.
that is not what we saw with Lawrence's version. remember, she is playing the young and less confident version of Mystique. you are comparing the two as if they are exactly the same, which they are not. people change over the course of forty years.
That only works in First Class. Remember, there is a 10 year gap between each of the movies (not that the actors are selling it), so she has over twenty years of experience with her powers... If she was near 16 in the first movie, she should be over 30 years carrying those powers by the time of Apocalypse.

At the end of the day, I wasn't very invested in the way they portrait Mystique in the new movies. We could blame it to the director or the actress, but without some behind the scenes, it is hard to point out to someone. I am also not a fan of Lawrence as an actress, as I was not very impressed with the other movies I saw her in. She is decent, but not "4 times Oscar nominee almost in a row" good. And since we already established that she is often typecasted, I don't want Carol Danvers to be yet another Katniss/Mystique tough young girl.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
hermes said:
That only works in First Class. Remember, there is a 10 year gap between each of the movies (not that the actors are selling it), so she has over twenty years of experience with her powers... If she was near 16 in the first movie, she should be over 30 years carrying those powers by the time of Apocalypse.
it isnt about "experience with powers", dude. that has nothing to do with personality. her character arc is as follows: 1. First Class Raven is a sheepish teenager (around 16) who is afraid to show her true self, but comes around at the end of the film. 2. Days of Future Past Raven/Mystique is a headstrong but emotionally compromized young woman (around 19) who has embraced her true self, although the events at the end of the film cause her to go back on this because... 3. Apocalypse Raven has become a disheartened young woman (around 22) in the wake of becoming the "face of mutantkind", which she does not wish to be, and as such, she goes back to hiding who she is (thats just the early parts of Apocalypse, as i wouldnt want to spoil the rest of her arc).

my point is that her powers and skill are irrelevant to who she is as a person. to put it another way: having thirty years of firearm experience isnt going to make you a killing machine. Mystique in the original films isnt a stone-faced, IDGAF bad-ass because she had all this time to practice her martial arts and shapeshifting abilities. she was like that because events that occurred in her life led to her becoming that person. she is a (biologically and mentally, roughly 27-year-old) woman who has spent over sixty years being persecuted by humans and poorly influenced by her mutant comrades, and it has left her cold and heartless. also, despite her long life, she does not behave like an old woman, just as Lawrence's version does not behave like a woman in her thirties or forties. she matures at a slower rate both biologically and mentally. this is important to remember.

Raven in the prequel trilogy and Mystique in the original trilogy are essentially two different people, but you are comparing them as if they are supposed to be the same. they are two vastly different versions of the same person, as each went down polar opposite paths in life.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Vykrel said:
hermes said:
That only works in First Class. Remember, there is a 10 year gap between each of the movies (not that the actors are selling it), so she has over twenty years of experience with her powers... If she was near 16 in the first movie, she should be over 30 years carrying those powers by the time of Apocalypse.
it isnt about "experience with powers", dude. that has nothing to do with personality. her character arc is as follows: 1. First Class Raven is a sheepish teenager (around 16) who is afraid to show her true self, but comes around at the end of the film. 2. Days of Future Past Raven/Mystique is a headstrong but emotionally compromized young woman (around 19) who has embraced her true self, although the events at the end of the film cause her to go back on this because... 3. Apocalypse Raven has become a disheartened young woman (around 22) in the wake of becoming the "face of mutantkind", which she does not wish to be, and as such, she goes back to hiding who she is (thats just the early parts of Apocalypse, as i wouldnt want to spoil the rest of her arc).
I am not going to continue arguing with you about it because, if her acting and her arc works for you, fine, more power to you. It just didn't for me. Besides, we are kidnapping the thread with an argument is not really relevant to it.

Just want to point out you might want to check the dates on your Raven arc... You make it sound like there is a 3 year gap between each movie, when the gap is supposed to be a lot bigger. First Class is set in the 60s, Days of Future Past is set in the 70s and Apocalypses is set in the 80s. If she starts as a sheepish 16 years old girl in the first movie, she would be in her mid twenties in the second and in her mid thirties in the third.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
hermes said:
I am not going to continue arguing with you about it because, if her acting and her arc works for you, fine, more power to you. It just didn't for me. Besides, we are kidnapping the thread with an argument is not really relevant to it.

Just want to point out you might want to check the dates on your Raven arc... You make it sound like there is a 3 year gap between each movie, when the gap is supposed to be a lot bigger. First Class is set in the 60s, Days of Future Past is set in the 70s and Apocalypses is set in the 80s. If she starts as a sheepish 16 years old girl in the first movie, she would be in her mid twenties in the second and in her mid thirties in the third.
hermes, this is not an argument. i am attempting to explain things to you about a character in these films that you clearly are not understanding. i am explaining that Lawrence's Mystique and Romijn's Mystique are not performed the exact same way because they have different character arcs and thus would not behave the exact same way.

and it is weird that i also have to explain this next part to you again, but while First Class takes place in the early sixties, DoFP in the early seventies, and Apocalypse in the early eighties, MYSTIQUE DOES NOT AGE NORMALLY. this is made incredibly clear in the films. she biologically and mentally matures at about a third the rate of someone who matures normally. there is a ten year gap between each prequel FILM, but Raven has not AGED ten years between each film. she has not even aged ten years over the course of all three prequel films. you know how Wolverine ages extremely slowly in the movies and his personality doesnt change based on how much time he has lived, but rather from his personal experiences? same principal applies with Raven/Mystique. in body and mind, both characters are maturing very slowly, Wolverine significantly more slowly.

to reiterate, while Mystique is CHRONOLOGICALLY in her sixties when Romijn first played her, she was BIOLOGICALLY AND MENTALLY around twenty-seven. and again, this is not an argument. i am offering you a clear explanation of a character bio. everything im telling you is shown in the films. this is not my opinion. this is not my view. this is simply how the character is written.

also, i never said Lawrence's acting or arc in these films worked for me. neither did. my original point was that her performance and character arc are a result of the writing and direction. it was the writers' decision to make Mystique into a reluctant hero, and it was Bryan Singer's decision to make her largely emotionless. they deviated from the original plan in First Class, which was to see how a sweet young girl grew up to be a ruthless villain.