Can you imagine how this film would have gone had they cast it differently? Perhaps you could have gotten some to do the Obidiah Stain character proud that wasn't Jeff Bridges like maybe Ron Perlman. But who could you get to play Pepper Potts? Maybe Charlize Theron. But what about Tony Stark? I can't think of anyone except Downey. Not Brad Pitt, because he's nto charismatic enough, though certainly a fine actor and handsome man. Marvel had already been burned by Ben Affleck in Diredevil (which isn't that bad of a movie). Matt Damon and Viggo Mortenson are great actors but like Brad Pitt are missing that little something. There is Jason Lee who has that kind of personal charisma to pull it off, but not the acting chops. Maybe, just maybe, you could have cast Aaron Eckhart as Tony Stark and pulled it off. He had some of that going on in the Dark Knight. There is one character that you know the actor can be replaced on, and that's the Colonel Rhodes character which saw Don Cheadle replace Terence Howard. So, the alternative cast is Aaron Eckhart as Tony Stark, Charlize Theron as Pepper Potts, Ron Perlman as Obidiah Stain and Don Cheadle as Colonel Rhodes. It might have been good. In an alternate universe that film was made, and if I ever perfect my Transdimensional Inducer Mechanism, aka T.I.M. I swear that I will report back with a full rundown.
In all of the super hero movies over the last few years that are based on comic books, almost none of the characters are as cool or as likeable in the films as in in the print media. Some are as good, like Ron Perlman as Hellboy or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and pretty much everyone in Watchmen. Out of all of them, there is only character that I like better in the movies, which is to say that I like him in the movies, but don't care for him so much in the comics, and that is Tony Stark. I would say that is about 75% due to Roberty Downey Jr. and about 25% to the writing.
When you think about it, Iron Man is almost Marvel's answer to Batman. I think the main difference is scope. Batman doesn't wear armor but he largely battles street thugs and super villains that are more about brains and schemes then about brute force. Iron Man on the other hand is all about taking on the big causes. In fact, the bigger the better. The other difference is how they approach the issue of being a super hero without any super powers, though both are arguably geniuses. Bruce Wayne turns himself into a weapon and makes do with retasking technology around him to work as the cool toys the Batman uses. Tony Stark on the other hand is always striving for the upper hand through superior tech and devotes his considerable intellect to solving the problem with technology much of which he invents as opposed to making himself a weapon. I think this is Marvel's answer to the problem posed by Detective Comics with their Batman. How can one man with nearly limitless resources but no super powers compete against super powered individuals and make a real difference in the battle against evil? Well, you build a super suit and you fight the good fight. DC, who mind you rolled Batman out some 25 years before Marvel debuted Iron Man, came to the conclusion that you make the man as hard as any man can possibly be. You make him physically hard, mentally hard and emotionally hard.
I'm on an Avengers Film Extravaganza now (though I still need to watch one more flick for the FFE) and I'm going to watch them in order which means that next up is the Hulk with Edward Norton followed by Iron Man II, Thor, Captain America and then the Avengers. I've only seen the Avengers one time so far, but I think not counting any change that may come about from a second watching, I think this is my favorite of the series. Though if the Avengers had included Natalie Portman instead of just showing a picture of her I might be telling a different story.
Iron Man on IMDb
No comments:
Post a Comment