[Lord Aquaman]

"Superman The Movie", the 1978 film that many believe made future superhero films like 1989's "Batman" and 2000's "X-Men" possible, seems to have created a stigma that must always cast an attractive unknown as the hero/heroine/title character/protagonist. Why? Simply because the late Christopher Reeve (1952-2004, may he rest in peace) was a little known soap opera actor at the time, and now Bryan Singer has chosen another little known soap opera actor in his mid 20s, Brandon J. Routh, to play Superman in this upcoming, tentively titled "Superman Returns" project set for 2006. Jim Caviezel wanted the part, but Singer bluntly rejected Jim, claiming Jim was "too famous" coming off "The Passion of the Christ". Personally, I think Jim Caviezel, 36, would have made a good Superman/Clark Kent, and so I must now ask the question -

Are unknowns REALLY the way to go in casting the leads for superhero flicks? Sure you could argue that an unknown actor gives off the feeling that he/she IS the character since they don't have any prior baggage with the audience, as might have been the case with Reeve back in 1978 and with Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in the X-Men features, but I don't think that always rings true. Michael Keaton had a TON of baggage with the audience when he played Batman/Bruce Wayne in director Tim Burton's phantasmagoric (spelled wrong probably) "Batman" feature of 1989, and he did a pretty good job with that part. Tobey Maguire was not exactly an "unknown" when he took on the role of Spider-Man/Peter Parker in the two mega-hit "Spider-Man" flicks (and he hasn't been typecast as "that Spider-Man guy").

Still, you can't cast just ANY actor in the lead part, as we discovered when they put George Clooney in the bat-suit for the 1997 misfire "Batman & Robin" (granted that film had a ton of problems in the plot/narrative structure & execution that weren't George's fault) or the poor, pale pairing of Ben Affleck & Jennifer Garner in 2003's "Daredevil".

But are unknowns really the right ones to play these superheroic characters simply by virtue of the fact that they are UNKNOWNS?

[looktothesky]

I think unknowns are excellent to play superhero characters. That way, when we watch the film, we SEE the character onscreen...I forgot where I was going...

[Jane Sherwood]

I think unknowns are excellent to play superhero characters. That way, when we watch the film, we SEE the character onscreen...I forgot where I was going...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...instead of seeing an actor playing the character?

[SimeSublime]

I dont know about you guys, but I had trouble with Eric Banna being the Hulk, as I knew him from a lot of his Australian comedy work. Sure, he played the part well(highlight of the crappy movie, really), but it sort of ruined the illusion, as I know Eric Banna is not the science type.

[Lord Aquaman]

I just don't think the "cast an unknown" stigma is really the way movie producers should go with EVERY SINGLE SUPERHERO FILM (the Batman films not withstanding). I mean, what if you cast an unknown and he/she can't act worth a damn and, as a result, drags the movie down into a box office flop?

This post has been edited by Lord Aquaman: 13 December 2004 - 08:57 AM

[Shawnathan]

I think casting unknown actors is the best thing to do. If casting decided to hire a very known actor, the audience won't pay attention to what character the actor is playing. They will just say "Yea, That's right Ben Affleck! you do a kick flip and say your crazy one-liner like Bruce Willis did in Die Hard!"

If it's a unkown actor, my opinion is the audience will pay attention to what character he/she is playing. NOT the actor. That's one reason why I liked "The Punisher" a little more than the others. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing the main character in that many movies in the past.

There are unknown actors out there that can act very well. Look at "21 Days later", I've never seen those actors before and they did a fine job.