Ooh, I forgot about Anthony Hopkins, as Odin. Gotta love that they've got multiple 'sirs' making superhero movies, between Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Ian McKellan and Sir Anthony Hopkins!
Ooh, I forgot about Anthony Hopkins, as Odin. Gotta love that they've got multiple 'sirs' making superhero movies, between Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Ian McKellan and Sir Anthony Hopkins!
While I do agree with Robert Redford I was also very surprised to see Garry Shandling play a serious role and he was perfectly cast in the role of Senator Stern in The Winter soldier.
Hail Hydra!
I'll be completely honest. I forgot all about Superman: The Movie. And yes, Brando was definitely the original coup. Without Brando, the movie wouldn't even have been made. Even if he pitched he should just voice a bagel
That may be true, but at this point it feels like Hopkins is a lot like Jackson- he'll do a McDonald's opening for a paycheck.
By the time Redford came along, superhero movies were already established as legitimate. Redford was hardly at the top of his career and he’d appeared in worse stuff than a superhero movie. If anything, being in a Marvel movie did more for Redford than he did for them.
I like Nicholson as a choice. Definitely made being a villain a thing to do.
Again, Stallone, Hopkins, Stewart, McKellan, Redford... These guys did a superhero movie long after the idea of a major star doing such a movie was legitimized in the late '70s through the late '80s by Brando, Hackman, Nicholson and Keaton. Nobody even mentions DeVito, Tommy Lee Jones or Arnold (yes the movie was bad but he got a huge paycheck) and so on because even by the second Batman movie, a big star wasn't risking his career by doing a superhero movie. The ground had been broken.
Power with Girl is better.
There's something with the tone of this post that isn't rubbing me right. It kind of implies that Redford needed a career revival or was desperate, when really he was already close to retirement as one of Hollywood's all-time legends, has a nine-figure fortune, founded and owns the Sundance Film Festival, and could afford to be picky, choosing Winter Soldier only because he'd never been in a film like that before.
It's really telling that since Winter Soldier, he focused primarily on production and then all but retired from live acting, only coming out of that retirement for a cameo in Endgame. Ever since the 70s, the guy has always had his choice of assignments (not just acting jobs), and he's also an Oscar winning director, too. Dude isn't hurting for money or exposure like he's a new film school grad. When someone like Redford calls up a studio asking for a role, you *give* him one.
Last edited by Cyke; 05-24-2020 at 02:47 AM.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
Wow, didn't expect people to be quite so triggered by a subjective comment on Redford. Amusing. I stand by it 100%.
The idea Redford changed anyone's perceptions of superhero movies in 2014 makes no sense to me, because I don't think the perception of them has really changed since 2014. By then, perceptions were pretty much entrenched. It might to you and that's fine. It sure didn't change Martin Scorsese's perception of them. Maybe actors like Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton jumped on because Redford had done one, but I doubt it.
I can respect his career and status as an icon, while still being realistic at his 2012 status as an actor when he would've asked Marvel to be in a movie. When Nicholson did Batman, he was up for Oscars every couple of years. When Redford asked to be in a Marvel movie, it'd been a while (and you can't count All is Lost because its awards come after CA:WS was shot). Obviously the guy didn't need the work to eat, but it's inarguable that more people saw him in CA:WS than any movie he'd been in for more than a decade and that included a ton of people who'd never seen him in anything before. Other than All is Lost, which was a low budget, low box office project, I can't think of anything he did since 2000 that was more critically-acclaimed, award-nominated, culturally-influential or commercially-successful than the best superhero movies. Maybe I'm forgetting something amazing.
Is disagreeing with someone "triggered"? It's a discussion board... so let's discuss. You can stand by your thoughts on his career, but I'm going to assume you were unaware of his Golden Globe nomination and critical success with All Is Lost (2013). Would I be right in that guess?
Well if we're playing the timeline game, he accepted the role in All Is Lost in 2011 and had done principle photography by summer 2012; and didn't confirm casting till March 2013 for Captain America: the Winter Soldier (2014). The industry talks, they know who's shot great work, and who's about to be considered a serious contender for award season.
The reason others might be ranking Redford so high (and to be clear, I don't think his inclusion is comparable to Jack Nicholson) is his iconic status as a serious actor. Or they just never thought he'd do a superhero film, which is seen as less laudable work? I don't agree with that assumption Redford isn't up for doing fun films.
While some kids remain uneducated in anything of cinema made before 2000, does that matter in a film discussion? If someone hasn't seen a single Redford film, I don't think their opinion on film has too much merit. Is that too harsh?
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
I agree totally that Redford was not a coo because he asked them and because getting big name actors in a superhero movie is no big deal anymore. Superhero movies are the star right now and even big name actors want to be in them.
However, Redford was asked why he wanted to be in an MCU movie and the interviewer, in my opinion was asking in a tone of voice that implied, "Why would you lower yourself like this?" He very matter-of-factly said that he's always had a fascination with the technical side, the special effects, and wanted to experience this new CGI form of movie-making for himself. The other reason was that, whenever he visits his grand-kids and asks if they've seen his most recent movie or the one before that or his movies from when he was young, the answer is, "Well, no, grandpa, but we're gonna watch them any day now". To which his response is, "Yeah, of course you are". So he wanted to do something he could sit and watch with his grand-kids without forcing them to watch movies they don't want to watch. He also said he respected what the MCU has accomplished in that they had a vision of a series of interconnected movies with different characters and characters going back and forth in a shared world, something that has never been done on this scale before and that's pretty much his interest in the MCU.
Power with Girl is better.
I would say it's still a coup because there are plenty of places for him to have asked - regular Disney flicks, Star Wars, DC universe...there are no shortage of movies that offer the opportunity he apparently was looking for. But Marvel was where he chose to seek the opportunity. For an actor of that calibre, that says a lot.