Mmmmmm that part won’t work for me.
I need *excellent* actors, every time, for every role. Talent and ability will absolutely always beat out “looking like the character” to me: that is what costumes, makeup, and preparation time are for.
Actually a major reason I don’t favor certain genres of film (like action movies, for example) is because other attributes are prioritized over talent and ability. Now “talent and ability” is not a monolithic metric: different skillsets are necessary for different roles. But I never, EVER want to sacrifice acting ability for “looks”. Not ever. Start with excellent actors who ALSO possess the necessary skillsets for the role, and go from there. But I require great acting, always.
Fair, and I don't at all disagree- talent first, always. My point was mostly that, instead of picking from the same pool of A, B, C, etc. list actors, why not go for the other folks you wouldn't normally think of for the role. I only mentioned looks because there are those out there that would complain if someone looked nothing like so-and-so. There are
so many talented performers- dancers, acrobats, wrestlers, voice actors, mocap actors, etc. that embody characters in ways that your traditional Hollywood actor may not. Hell, half the time, they
are the character, and the big name just comes in after the fact and says some lines in a booth (not to discredit that at all- voice acting is an art form in and of itself). But they get written off or not considered because they're X thing instead. The filmmakers realizing what they had in front of them is how we got Doug Jones, and Andy Serkis, and I'm sure many other big names too. I'd rather a complete unknown get cast in some of these roles over some of the big faces, because as much as I do like a lot of them, they often just play themselves, and it's hard not to see
them in the role.
It's so interesting to me how some franchises like Batman, Bond, etc. recognize the importance of recasting and ensuring your character stays alive and fresh, whereas other companies are so afraid to recast that they'll fling an old man around on wires until the day he dies (and, the way things are going, probably use his likeness for the rest of time). And sure, those characters are the title characters, but let's be real- isn't Wolverine? Isn't Luke? Aren't half the MCU characters? Obviously the whole "who's the best" discussions are draining in and of themselves, but they're kinda fun too- the fact that a character has persisted long enough to survive multiple decades and interpretations, as they often deserve to. And honestly, in some cases, these roles deserve to rest. You can connect a universe with more than just the marquee characters. Having Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba in Rogue One was a fun little easter egg and more than enough connective tissue for me (not saying I didn't like all the other bits- they rocked too). I don't need to see the Joker or Harley Quinn shoehorned into every project. But we have this fixation with the big names and the big characters, and it's exhausting sometimes. I feel like the studios still treat their audiences stupidly, and because audiences are treated stupidly, they don't ever really care to connect in a deeper way.
