Spider-Man Has Already Shot His ‘Captain America: Civil War’ Cameo
Truthfully, I'm hoping that's all it really is. I'm more interested in the other new/newer characters in this movie then the Webhead.
M
Agreed. A cameo? Sure. But a major role to play in a movie that is already so crowded? No thanks. I would still rather this be mostly the third Cap movie than the next Avengers movie. And I definitely don't need it to also be a Spider-Man movie.
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
Some.
Hope.
Agreed. I really liked the last Avengers movie & look forward to the next one...but the MCU has really made me like Rogers. I don't want this to be a prologue to the next Avengers movie with Stark stealing scenes that could go to Wilson/Barnes/Rogers story.
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
Some.
Hope.
I don't want this to be a prologue to the next Avengers movie with Stark stealing scenes that could go to Wilson/Barnes/Rogers story.
M
Same here. I'm worried cap will be pushed to the background of his own supposed movie. I don't know how they're going to fit everything and everyone incorporated with the civil war story into 2hrs. Personally my one main gripe about the MCU is the emphasis on stark/ironman. Im still desperately waiting and wanting to see cap knock stark down a peg. They've missed a couple needed opportunities imo.
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
Some.
Hope.
I don't want this to be a prologue to the next Avengers movie with Stark stealing scenes that could go to Wilson/Barnes/Rogers story.
M
Same here. I'm worried cap will be pushed to the background of his own supposed movie. I don't know how they're going to fit everything and everyone incorporated with the civil war story into 2hrs. Personally my one main gripe about the MCU is the emphasis on stark/ironman. Im still desperately waiting and wanting to see cap knock stark down a peg. They've missed a couple needed opportunities imo.
It might happen in this movie, but Iron Man is like Batman for WB right now. He's where all the money is. Look at movies that prominently feature Iron Man vs those where he's not around. Massive difference in $$$
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
Some.
Hope.
I don't want this to be a prologue to the next Avengers movie with Stark stealing scenes that could go to Wilson/Barnes/Rogers story.
M
Same here. I'm worried cap will be pushed to the background of his own supposed movie. I don't know how they're going to fit everything and everyone incorporated with the civil war story into 2hrs. Personally my one main gripe about the MCU is the emphasis on stark/ironman. Im still desperately waiting and wanting to see cap knock stark down a peg. They've missed a couple needed opportunities imo.
It might happen in this movie, but Iron Man is like Batman for WB right now. He's where all the money is. Look at movies that prominently feature Iron Man vs those where he's not around. Massive difference in $$$
I think it would be more correct to say that RDJ is like Batman. I Downey that people go to see. He just happens to play Tony Stark.
I used to think Captain America would be a good character to anchor a series of stand-alone, Bond-like action films, but it sounds like that won't be the case. Even Winter Soldier's main purpose was to set up a certain status quo within the MCU (though it was done skillfully enough that it didn't stick out like a sore thumb the way things did in Iron Man 2).
I expect to still enjoy Civil War, but I still have this feeling we may lose the Chris Evans' Cap to service an overall story arc
i never liked the Civil War comic book, so i'm wary of this film.
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
The tiny scene we saw (--SPOILER--) recently give some hope that Steve/Sam/Bucky are gonna be the core of the film, and the film will show us Civil War through their eyes, rather than try to sprawl around everywhichwhere.
Some.
Hope.
I don't want this to be a prologue to the next Avengers movie with Stark stealing scenes that could go to Wilson/Barnes/Rogers story.
M
Same here. I'm worried cap will be pushed to the background of his own supposed movie. I don't know how they're going to fit everything and everyone incorporated with the civil war story into 2hrs. Personally my one main gripe about the MCU is the emphasis on stark/ironman. Im still desperately waiting and wanting to see cap knock stark down a peg. They've missed a couple needed opportunities imo.
It might happen in this movie, but Iron Man is like Batman for WB right now. He's where all the money is. Look at movies that prominently feature Iron Man vs those where he's not around. Massive difference in $$$
I think it would be more correct to say that RDJ is like Batman. I Downey that people go to see. He just happens to play Tony Stark.
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
The way RDJ's contract makes his salary grow exponentially with every film appearance, it won't be much longer before he prices himself out of the role. The next wave of films is all about Marvel positioning someone else to be the new "face" of Marvel.
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
The way RDJ's contract makes his salary grow exponentially with every film appearance, it won't be much longer before he prices himself out of the role. The next wave of films is all about Marvel positioning someone else to be the new "face" of Marvel.
I think at the end of the day, Tony will either be recast due to RDJ's desire to leave the role, or his deal will be restructured. I firmly believe Iron Man is where the $$$$ is at and that RDJ is a big part of that, but at some point there's an upper limit to someone's worth. If he wants to he can probably keep playing the role for another ten years and earn a ton of money, or earn something else he may want (like the chance to direct a movie or two of his choosing with the studio), but his salary can't keep going through the roof.
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
The way RDJ's contract makes his salary grow exponentially with every film appearance, it won't be much longer before he prices himself out of the role. The next wave of films is all about Marvel positioning someone else to be the new "face" of Marvel.
I think at the end of the day, Tony will either be recast due to RDJ's desire to leave the role, or his deal will be restructured. I firmly believe Iron Man is where the $$$$ is at and that RDJ is a big part of that, but at some point there's an upper limit to someone's worth. If he wants to he can probably keep playing the role for another ten years and earn a ton of money, or earn something else he may want (like the chance to direct a movie or two of his choosing with the studio), but his salary can't keep going through the roof.
I disagree; Iron Man isn't Batman without RDJ. Recasting the character will either give us a new version of the character (which can backfire very easily) or an actor playing RDJ as Stark (will be as much as turn off as when it was done in Marvel NOW!)
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
The way RDJ's contract makes his salary grow exponentially with every film appearance, it won't be much longer before he prices himself out of the role. The next wave of films is all about Marvel positioning someone else to be the new "face" of Marvel.
Who would be the new face, though? When there were rumors that they were looking for a better known actor for Doctor Strange, I thought maybe that character would be the new center, but when it turned out they were strongly courting Joaquin Phoenix, that blew that theory out of the water for me. I'd hardly consider him as charming and likable as RDJ. Cumberbatch is a little better in that regard, but still not the type I'd picture anchoring a whole universe of franchises.
I think they struck gold with RDJ, and that's going to be hard to replicate. DC probably thinks they can do the same thing with Affleck, but I bet that doesn't pay off as well, either. There simply aren't that many actors that fit the bill, and are willing to play along.
True but for now, the two are inseparable. We won't know how much the kids and adults will continue to embrace Iron Man with a different actor until it happens.
The way RDJ's contract makes his salary grow exponentially with every film appearance, it won't be much longer before he prices himself out of the role. The next wave of films is all about Marvel positioning someone else to be the new "face" of Marvel.
Who would be the new face, though? When there were rumors that they were looking for a better known actor for Doctor Strange, I thought maybe that character would be the new center, but when it turned out they were strongly courting Joaquin Phoenix, that blew that theory out of the water for me. I'd hardly consider him as charming and likable as RDJ. Cumberbatch is a little better in that regard, but still not the type I'd picture anchoring a whole universe of franchises.
I think they struck gold with RDJ, and that's going to be hard to replicate. DC probably thinks they can do the same thing with Affleck, but I bet that doesn't pay off as well, either. There simply aren't that many actors that fit the bill, and are willing to play along.
I agree with your points about Affleck.
I stated this in the Ant-Man movie review, but I think Paul Rudd could replicate SOME of the personality RDJ brings. He won't have the Stark fortune or his genius, but he has access to Pym's genius (not that Scott is a dummy) & the Pym fortune.
Rudd would be a good option - he's always been likable, and it was nice to see him finally land a successful franchise that takes advantage of that. I'm just not sure Ant-Man is a big enough character to fully fill those shoes.
I find it interesting that in RDJ, Marvel got an actor on an upswing, who'd fought his personal demons and won, settled down, raised a family - pretty much an overall great package if you want someone to anchor and promote your films.
DC ended up with Affleck, who then proceeded to go through a divorce and, if rumors are to be believed, is falling into messy behavior similar to what gave RDJ a bad name years ago (though admittedly not at as severe a level). I think Affleck's done plenty of good work, but the likability factor is wobbly with him. I think most people find RDJ charming, but people seem to either love or loathe Affleck.
Rudd would be a good option - he's always been likable, and it was nice to see him finally land a successful franchise that takes advantage of that. I'm just not sure Ant-Man is a big enough character to fully fill those shoes.
I find it interesting that in RDJ, Marvel got an actor on an upswing, who'd fought his personal demons and won, settled down, raised a family - pretty much an overall great package if you want someone to anchor and promote your films.
DC ended up with Affleck, who then proceeded to go through a divorce and, if rumors are to be believed, is falling into messy behavior similar to what gave RDJ a bad name years ago (though admittedly not at as severe a level). I think Affleck's done plenty of good work, but the likability factor is wobbly with him. I think most people find RDJ charming, but people seem to either love or loathe Affleck.
I think you are right about that (EDIT- What follows was not about you, as I know you are just making the cultural observation, rather than joining it)--
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
Sure, with the caveat that there might be some extreme exceptions for extreme behavior, say the Bill Cosbys of the world, but you know what I mean. I'm just talking about banal, COMMON, things. Like divorce. Which is very common and none of our business. Imagine saying to someone, 'I don't know. Did you hear our investment advisor at Fidelity just got DIVORCED?? I'm not sure I still want to go to her.' You know what I mean? That sounds like something out of a Brontes novel. I mean, it is one thing is there is an actor whose career you follow closely, or whose whole life of work you want to read about, because they are an artist you have really gotten engaged by, and you want to know more about the biography of the life that went with that career. I get that, and even have a few artists I follow like that.
But it is more the more general, prurient interest I am taking about. The idea that a recent divorce or over the top moment on Oprah's couch should actually affect the box office and livelihood of a product that took hundreds of people to make.
That, somehow, the personal lives and offscreen behavior of big name actors are considered material to the public. In 2015. A core competency of their work onscreen. Which, again, is largely a product of Hollywood's own making. But still something I would like us, as a culture, to get a little more sophisticated about by now. /ANDY ROONEY
I find it interesting that in RDJ, Marvel got an actor on an upswing, who'd fought his personal demons and won, settled down, raised a family - pretty much an overall great package if you want someone to anchor and promote your films.
DC ended up with Affleck, who then proceeded to go through a divorce and, if rumors are to be believed, is falling into messy behavior similar to what gave RDJ a bad name years ago (though admittedly not at as severe a level).
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
sounds similar to the race-blind casting defenders... if all that matters is the end result... why should their race matter?
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
sounds similar to the race-blind casting defenders... if all that matters is the end result... why should their race matter?
except it does...
For me. I think that is a different thing, actually. And really depends on the role, and whether the race or ethnicity of the character is an integral part of the character, not historically, but as it pertains to the character that is in the actual story of the movie being made, you know what I mean?
Put simply, at least when it comes down to what the race, ethnicity, size, age, or mobility, etc., of how an actor APPEARS to be onscreen, that is at least a visual thing in a visual medium. It will probably end up a part of the portrayal, because it is part of their instrument. So at least when people are talking about that, they are talking about something that will likely be apparent onscreen.
Wheras I doubt Ben Affleck will be visibly divorced in his movies, or RDJ visibly married.
(That said, in very few instances to I believe that race still matters, at least in most of the most recent or most controversial to the fans instances. Especially as I think we should treat these portrayals, especially of movies we have not seen yet, as new characters we haven't met yet. Sure, they may be adapted from things we know, but the movies are their own thing. But, again, I think that is a very different and more complicated issue than what I was talking about.)
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
sounds similar to the race-blind casting defenders... if all that matters is the end result... why should their race matter?
except it does...
For me. I think that is a different thing, actually. And really depends on the role, and whether the race or ethnicity of the character is an integral part of the character, not historically, but as it pertains to the character that is in the actual story of the movie being made, you know what I mean?
Put simply, at least when it comes down to what the race, ethnicity, size, age, or mobility, etc., of how an actor APPEARS to be onscreen, that is at least a visual thing in a visual medium. It will probably end up a part of the portrayal, because it is part of their instrument. So at least when people are talking about that, they are talking about something that will likely be apparent onscreen.
Wheras I doubt Ben Affleck will be visibly divorced in his movies, or RDJ visibly married.
(That said, in very few instances to I believe that race still matters, at least in most of the most recent or most controversial to the fans instances. Especially as I think we should treat these portrayals, especially of movies we have not seen yet, as new characters we haven't met yet. Sure, they may be adapted from things we know, but the movies are their own thing. But, again, I think that is a very different and more complicated issue than what I was talking about.)
I thought the original point was more about RDJ's history of drug and alchol abuse, which was painfully and publicly revealed during his messy "Ally McBeal" meltdown back in 2001 and reflected in his on screen portrayal of drug abuse in "Less Than Zero". With the "Demon in a Bottle" being perhaps the most famous storyline in Iron Man's rich history, no doubt comparisons were being made to RDJr's fall from grace in his past. The role of Iron Man was either going to make or break RDJr. A lot of eyes were on RDJ and IM was his chance to prove the critics of his personal life wrong. In late 2007 and early 2008, the tabloids and press were wondering if a guy who had done the 'perp walk' could pull off the superhero role. I think this is one of the many reasons RDJ is so closely associated with IM and after the comeback it represented for him and his career, it will be a most difficult challenge to replace him. I guess, actually, Marvel took kind of risk with Robert Downey Jr.
Only one actor has played Iron Man on film. Batman? Not so.
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
sounds similar to the race-blind casting defenders... if all that matters is the end result... why should their race matter?
except it does...
For me. I think that is a different thing, actually. And really depends on the role, and whether the race or ethnicity of the character is an integral part of the character, not historically, but as it pertains to the character that is in the actual story of the movie being made, you know what I mean?
Put simply, at least when it comes down to what the race, ethnicity, size, age, or mobility, etc., of how an actor APPEARS to be onscreen, that is at least a visual thing in a visual medium. It will probably end up a part of the portrayal, because it is part of their instrument. So at least when people are talking about that, they are talking about something that will likely be apparent onscreen.
Wheras I doubt Ben Affleck will be visibly divorced in his movies, or RDJ visibly married.
(That said, in very few instances to I believe that race still matters, at least in most of the most recent or most controversial to the fans instances. Especially as I think we should treat these portrayals, especially of movies we have not seen yet, as new characters we haven't met yet. Sure, they may be adapted from things we know, but the movies are their own thing. But, again, I think that is a very different and more complicated issue than what I was talking about.)
I thought the original point was more about RDJ's history of drug and alchol abuse, which was painfully and publicly revealed during his messy "Ally McBeal" meltdown back in 2001 and reflected in his on screen portrayal of drug abuse in "Less Than Zero". With the "Demon in a Bottle" being perhaps the most famous storyline in Iron Man's rich history, no doubt comparisons were being made to RDJr's fall from grace in his past. The role of Iron Man was either going to make or break RDJr. A lot of eyes were on RDJ and IM was his chance to prove the critics of his personal life wrong. In late 2007 and early 2008, the tabloids and press were wondering if a guy who had done the 'perp walk' could pull off the superhero role. I think this is one of the many reasons RDJ is so closely associated with IM and after the comeback it represented for him and his career, it will be a most difficult challenge to replace him. I guess, actually, Marvel took kind of risk with Robert Downey Jr.
Only one actor has played Iron Man on film. Batman? Not so.
To me, personal problems with addiction and a record of victimless (beyond the self) crimes like drug possession are as irrelevant to an actor's on-screen work as divorce. They are tragic in anyone's life, of course. It can feel, to those of us on the outside of it, who only know and experience them through their work, an enormous waste of talent, potential, and opportunity. My favorite actor died of addiction. But while they are alive and struggling with it, if they are not someone I know or can affect personally, then it is none of my business, nor mine to judge. It doesn't problematize their current or past work for me the way it would if they have a history of really hurting people, like a Cosby.
Sure, to us comic geeks there was the meta level of Tony Stark's history with addiction, but, remember, the general public at that time had no idea what a Tony Stark was. So I don't think that, if that were some kind of stunt casting, it was not one that people outside us inside baseball fans noticed.
I suppose Marvel was taking a chance. But, even that old LA Times article that was seeking to make hay and raise eyebrows back then acknowledged that his real troubles were five years in the past. He had successfully completed several movies sober since then, including lead roles. I am sure they investigated and talked to people who worked with him on the several films before Iron Man. I am sure they had completion bonds. But I would guess those bonds cost a lot less than they would have five years prior.
Maybe Marvel was taking a risk. Or maybe they were getting a very charismatic and talented Oscar nominee at a bargain rate. However Marvel thought of it, it was clearly a wise investment.
The point of including all of the article links was to demonstrate how the press was absolutely making it about Robert Downey Jr's drug problems and checkered past. I merely posited that it placed in a portion of the public's eye that RDJr was very similar to Iron Man in that way, as far as alcohol abuse. The associations were made to the public via the mainstream media, they didn't need to know the comic story, but Demon in a Bottle was the most famous of Tony Stark's arcs.
The point of including all of the article links was to demonstrate how the press was absolutely making it about Robert Downey Jr's drug problems and checkered past. I merely posited that it placed in a portion of the public's eye that RDJr was very similar to Iron Man in that way, as far as alcohol abuse. The associations were made to the public via the mainstream media, they didn't need to know the comic story, but Demon in a Bottle was the most famous of Tony Stark's arcs.
Sure. Press tried to make it about RDJ's checked past and sell this as a redemption story. Just as other press will make this or that movie about some high profile divorce or new romance. They will sell people what people seem to take interest in.
My overall point is that it would be refreshing if what we were actually taking more of an interest in was the work, not the personal lives behind it, which are neither actually knowable to us, or any of out business as an audience-to-be of the work. And whenever we feed that kind of prurient press our eyeballs, we are perpetuating a part of our relationship to our artists and entertainers that I hope some future generation is sophisticated enough to be uninterested in.
I doubt that RDJ would be recast for Avengers Infinity War. Disney/Marvel will pay him to close out the phase and if not, it would be easier just to write out Iron Man from those movies*. So if Marvel sticks to schedule, the earliest we would possibly need a recast Iron Man is for a film to be released in 2020. Probably even later if they decide to do additonal sequals of other characters or new movies of different characters.
So at this point. It really does not matter who the next Iron Man will be or who will be the new face of the MCU and how their personal problems will effect fan perception. We have years to go with the current MCU. Let's just enjoy the moment.
*disclaimer: I could be completely wrong. Movie studios sometimes do dumb things and they could recast Iron Man for Avengers Infinity War.
Comments
Cap vs Iron Man is just not that interesting to me.
But I trust the Russo Brothers can make a kickass action movie!
Some.
Hope.
M
I expect to still enjoy Civil War, but I still have this feeling we may lose the Chris Evans' Cap to service an overall story arc
M
I think they struck gold with RDJ, and that's going to be hard to replicate. DC probably thinks they can do the same thing with Affleck, but I bet that doesn't pay off as well, either. There simply aren't that many actors that fit the bill, and are willing to play along.
I stated this in the Ant-Man movie review, but I think Paul Rudd could replicate SOME of the personality RDJ brings. He won't have the Stark fortune or his genius, but he has access to Pym's genius (not that Scott is a dummy) & the Pym fortune.
M
I find it interesting that in RDJ, Marvel got an actor on an upswing, who'd fought his personal demons and won, settled down, raised a family - pretty much an overall great package if you want someone to anchor and promote your films.
DC ended up with Affleck, who then proceeded to go through a divorce and, if rumors are to be believed, is falling into messy behavior similar to what gave RDJ a bad name years ago (though admittedly not at as severe a level). I think Affleck's done plenty of good work, but the likability factor is wobbly with him. I think most people find RDJ charming, but people seem to either love or loathe Affleck.
But I also think it is ridiculous that the personal lives of actors have any bearing on how we feel about their work onscreen. I mean, I know in our culture it works that way, and there is a human nature something about looking at a person (or a projection of a person) and even though they are playing a role, our feelings about the performer as a real person gets in the mix. I get that is unavoidable (and that Hollywood has long tried to take advantage of marketing and branding these people as products), but there are times that I wish we would approach the work of actors the same way we do the work of our doctors, plumbers, and other professionals: All that should really matter are the results.
Sure, with the caveat that there might be some extreme exceptions for extreme behavior, say the Bill Cosbys of the world, but you know what I mean. I'm just talking about banal, COMMON, things. Like divorce. Which is very common and none of our business. Imagine saying to someone, 'I don't know. Did you hear our investment advisor at Fidelity just got DIVORCED?? I'm not sure I still want to go to her.' You know what I mean? That sounds like something out of a Brontes novel. I mean, it is one thing is there is an actor whose career you follow closely, or whose whole life of work you want to read about, because they are an artist you have really gotten engaged by, and you want to know more about the biography of the life that went with that career. I get that, and even have a few artists I follow like that.
But it is more the more general, prurient interest I am taking about. The idea that a recent divorce or over the top moment on Oprah's couch should actually affect the box office and livelihood of a product that took hundreds of people to make.
That, somehow, the personal lives and offscreen behavior of big name actors are considered material to the public. In 2015. A core competency of their work onscreen. Which, again, is largely a product of Hollywood's own making. But still something I would like us, as a culture, to get a little more sophisticated about by now. /ANDY ROONEY
if all that matters is the end result... why should their race matter?
except it does...
Put simply, at least when it comes down to what the race, ethnicity, size, age, or mobility, etc., of how an actor APPEARS to be onscreen, that is at least a visual thing in a visual medium. It will probably end up a part of the portrayal, because it is part of their instrument. So at least when people are talking about that, they are talking about something that will likely be apparent onscreen.
Wheras I doubt Ben Affleck will be visibly divorced in his movies, or RDJ visibly married.
(That said, in very few instances to I believe that race still matters, at least in most of the most recent or most controversial to the fans instances. Especially as I think we should treat these portrayals, especially of movies we have not seen yet, as new characters we haven't met yet. Sure, they may be adapted from things we know, but the movies are their own thing. But, again, I think that is a very different and more complicated issue than what I was talking about.)
;-P
Only one actor has played Iron Man on film. Batman? Not so.
Sure, to us comic geeks there was the meta level of Tony Stark's history with addiction, but, remember, the general public at that time had no idea what a Tony Stark was. So I don't think that, if that were some kind of stunt casting, it was not one that people outside us inside baseball fans noticed.
I suppose Marvel was taking a chance. But, even that old LA Times article that was seeking to make hay and raise eyebrows back then acknowledged that his real troubles were five years in the past. He had successfully completed several movies sober since then, including lead roles. I am sure they investigated and talked to people who worked with him on the several films before Iron Man. I am sure they had completion bonds. But I would guess those bonds cost a lot less than they would have five years prior.
Maybe Marvel was taking a risk. Or maybe they were getting a very charismatic and talented Oscar nominee at a bargain rate. However Marvel thought of it, it was clearly a wise investment.
My overall point is that it would be refreshing if what we were actually taking more of an interest in was the work, not the personal lives behind it, which are neither actually knowable to us, or any of out business as an audience-to-be of the work. And whenever we feed that kind of prurient press our eyeballs, we are perpetuating a part of our relationship to our artists and entertainers that I hope some future generation is sophisticated enough to be uninterested in.
M.
So at this point. It really does not matter who the next Iron Man will be or who will be the new face of the MCU and how their personal problems will effect fan perception. We have years to go with the current MCU. Let's just enjoy the moment.
*disclaimer: I could be completely wrong. Movie studios sometimes do dumb things and they could recast Iron Man for Avengers Infinity War.
M