Nothing gets fans going like some big casting news. We've certainly gotten a lot of it over the last year. From Paul Rudd as Ant-Man to Aaron Taylor-Johnson AND Evan Peters as Quicksilver to, most recently, Jesse Eisenberg as Lexcorp CEO, Lex Luthor.
Historically, directors' choices for a role have been met with hate, criticism (often confused as hate) and sometimes faith. While some may ask "what're they thinking" others encourage, "just give them a chance".
The movie business is first and foremost…well…a business. As a result, casting in Hollywood becomes more about box office than the character being brought to life. And this is where "Name" actors or "A-Listers" come in.
Directors and studios turn to stars because they bring built in fan bases to projects. They have recognition. But consider this - when a "Name" actor is cast it's possible the character may suffer for it. More on that a little later. First, a question…
HOW IMPORTANT IS CASTING?
Filmmakers often preach finding "the best actor for the role" but often times that seems far from the case. Such as:
If finding the best person was important, ideally, there would be a criteria in place. A checklist to ensure the director and company don't stray too far from the map. What would be on this list? How about these three things?
1. ACTING ABILITY - Pretty self explanatory. Because what good is casting someone who looks the part but is ill equipped? You could turn on the SyFy Channel and find someone who looks like Aquaman but has as much talent as a potato.
2. CHARISMA - That "It" factor, as they say in Hollywood. Can the actor captivate an audience even when he/she doesn't have any lines? Do they draw you in? This isn't as important with supporting characters but it's absolutely necessary for the lead. Especially if that actor is the center of a potential franchise.
3. FITTING THE ROLE - Here's where things get dicey. Fitting the role is more than having a resemblance to the character. Comic book writers and artists give their characters a physical presence - menacing. Suave. Sultry. Whatever they're going for. They provide us with a sense of who these characters are or could be were they flesh and blood. And readers are able to interpret this.
So things like age, size and height do play an important part when casting. And film is a visual medium so, yes, looks are important. Not so much attractiveness, more "does the actor fit the mold". It's the reason some actors are always cast as "the geek", "the soldier" or "the villain".
Considering all of this, how important is casting? Very.
As important as it is to nab a gifted actor for a role, equally important is convincing our eyes we're watching our favorite heroes and villains come to life on the big screen. And here's where casting a big name star can work against that.
THE STAR VS THE CHARACTER
When you watch Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a movie do you see the character he's playing or do you see The Rock? How about Tom Cruise? Brad Pitt? Ben Affleck? When Martin Campbell cast Ryan Reynolds in the title role of 2011's "Green Lantern", it was Ryan Reynolds in green CGI.
The bigger the star, the greater risk the property suffers for it. Meaning, instead of seeing their favorite character audiences see their favorite actor. So while Michael Douglas as Hank Pym in Edgar Wright's upcoming "Ant-Man" is amazing, it's Michael fricken Douglas. Will audiences see Hank Pym or the Hollywood legend?
How about Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? Sure, he was playing Lucius Fox but Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman.
Fans do it too with their Fan-casts. Chris Pine and Ryan Gosling as The Flash. Idris Elba as John Stewart. Before Affleck was cast in the "Man of Steel" sequel Karl Urban was a favorite for the new Batman.
While these may sound great, these actors are so well known and recognizable it would make it difficult to see the character being portrayed. So if not big names, who should studios be looking at? Newcomers and unknowns, of course.
CREATING NEW STARS
Instead of using comic properties as "vehicles" to showcase established stars, why not use them to create new ones? Finding actors with established bodies of work, waiting for their big break. That chance to show just how talented they are. It's the type of success story we've come to love.
Some of you might be thinking, "Like Gal Gadot". Well, not quite. Warner Bros. and Snyder had a short list for Wonder Woman (and the other roles). While many suggest, "He must have seen something in her", Gadot read against two other prospects.
Imagine the New York Jets going into training camp with Geno Smith, Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow on the roster. Smith gets the start. One could say, "Well, they must have seen something in him" but you'd have to consider who the opposition was.
Now what if superhero movies had casting calls for lead roles? Worldwide. Headshots, tapes, the whole nine yards. Casting a wide net instead of picking from the same Hollywood tree. The scope of the process would make the actor's story of getting the part incredible.
Marvel Studios could've introduced the world to six or seven talented new actors leading up to "The Avengers". We did get Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston but the rest of the cast comprised of veterans, some past Oscar nominees.
Imagine if Marvel's "Iron Man" and "Captain America" films starred two gifted indie actors unknown to mainstream audiences. Hollywood would have two brand new leading men right now. Possibly three if you include "The Incredible Hulk". Here's a theory...
If a newcomer or unknown was cast as Bruce Banner, that actor would've returned for "The Avengers". And just maybe we would've been able to look forward to a Phase 2 Hulk sequel featuring The Leader, as teased in TIH. Just a thought.
And how about "The Amazing Spider-Man"? Sony announced the reboot would follow 15 or 16 year old Peter Parker through high school. This was the perfect opportunity to introduce bright, young talent. A couple kids in their late teens the new franchise could turn into stars overnight.
Yes, actors in their mid 20s are cast as high school kids all the time. But they get older. Actors might get a pass on the first installment but not with each sequel as they reach their 30s.
On a side note - Putting Peter back in high school opened up a new dynamic in the story. Throughout his adventures people forget Spider-Man is just a boy. Underneath that mask is a kid. By casting then 26 year old Garfield, (now 30), Marc Webb and Sony missed out on this.
Cast a man in the part and it's just another action movie. But put an 18, 17 or even 16 year old actor in the role and it brings a different emotional weight. Especially with the Sinister Six coming. It would make the franchise unique.
Watching a boy facing such impossible odds adds a dimension audiences don't get from watching Jackman, Downey Jr. or Cavill. And it's not just Garfield. The same goes for Emma Stone and now Dane DeHaan. Casting age appropriate can provide numerous creative advantages.
IN CLOSING
Again, the movie business is a business. The goal is to entertain but, more importantly, make money. And big names generate interest. Star power can lead to big box office. More goes into the casting process than finding the "perfect" actor for the role. There are politics. Relationships. Often times it comes down to who the director likes or has always wanted to work with.
Steering clear of "Name" actors may sound like it goes against the bottom line but there is an upside. Besides the possibility of creating new stars it puts the focus back on the property. The characters. Despite its format, comic books are just another form of storytelling. And audiences love a good story.
Executives may consider a superhero movie with no stars a risk but it isn't. Not if you have a solid script, a solid director and, of course, a promising cast.
What do you think? Is casting a big deal for you? Sound off below and thanks for reading.