I never do conform to these fancasts, but not long ago in a movie theater a few miles away, I saw the final Star Wars film, Episode III: Revenge of Sith. In short, it was the best of the prequels, but still frustrated the hell out of me with it's countless plot holes, vomit-retching dialogue, and bad story and character choices like giving everyone a lightsaber. It's probably the most frustratingly good movie out there because I did enjoy it. It still wasn't good enough to save the prequels, so I still mourn to this day at the rape of Star Wars.
Then a few years later, I was watching a movie review from one of the funniest companies on the internet, RedLetterMedia. I also make reviews at TheMcDougalBugle.com, so while appreciating all the work that went into his review, I was trying to take in everything he was saying. The review of course was of Episode III.
One thing I like about Mr. Plinkett is that he tries to hold the right people accountable for a movie's failure, not just everyone involved. In the Star Wars prequels and as evident by the films, everyone around George Lucas seemed to be putting their all into doing their part. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they are working on arguably the greatest sc-fi franchise of all time and probably just trusted George Lucas because he's proven himself. How were they supposed to know Lucas was ruining Star Wars. I encourage you to read this
Interview from 1977. I don't want to go off track, but since I'm mentioning this, I just want to say you can't be to hard on Lucas. If you read that interview or others, you'd know that making the original Star Wars trilogy wasn't an easy task. It may have been traumatizing for Lucas. It played apart in the downfall of his first marriage, he overworked himself to death, had to go to the hospital because of stress, and was just an awful experience. Sure it made for great entertainment, but you can't ask a man in his 60's with the experience to do that all over again. So that's reasonable he just wanted to make everything with CGI and from this quote, you'd know that one of the reasons Lucas made these movies was simply to make toys:
"One of my motivating factors for doing the film, along with all the other ones, was that I love toys and games. And so I figured, gee, I could start a kind of a store that sold comic art, and sold sevety-eight records, or old rock 'n' roll records that I like, and antique toys and a lot of things that I am really into; stuff that you can't buy in regular stores. I also like to create games and things, so that was part of the movie, to be able to generate toys and things. Also, I figured the merchandising along with the sequels would give me enough income over a period of time so that I could retire from professional filmmaking and go into making my own kind of movies, my own sort of abstract, weird, experimental stuff."
I think what he should have done was let other crazy, foolish, courageous young filmmakers who would sit in the hot sun all day to get a shot because they love Star Wars to direct the prequels.
Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make was it was an excuse for Lucas to direct the prequels, but that he is somewhat justified in his poor decisions. In RedLetterMedia's review, he recommended viewing Shattering Glass and not to blame Hayden Christensen's acting but Lucas' direction. So I watched Shattering Glass and damn, Hayden Christensen can act. And if you watch the documentaries, Lucas was telling Christensen how to act, not giving him any range. The bad performance is the result of a bad director, not a bad actor.
So in mine and few others' books, Christensen is a great actor and if there's a great director behind him, his role can be outstanding. Regarding Takers, I haven't seen but again, I can't blame him if it sucked. The director hasn't done anything good, the screenwriters suck, all the other actors suck so I don't think I'm alone in not blaming him.
And yes, he has a lot of annoying fangirls. Just search his name on Youtube, watch some videos, and read the comments and you'll know that, but again, how is that his fault?
I think he is a case of a great actor down on his luck, but I think if cast as Ant-Man, which even if he doesn't look exactly like Henry Pym, the movie does not have to be the same as the comic. And I believe with make-up, he resembles him close enough. Plus he can act.
You know how people say "In Nolan we Trust." Well, to the doubters, say "In McDougal, we trust." Because I'm making this recommendation. It's not yet confirmed. When it is, then you can say, "In White, we trust." I hope that the comments bellow are saying this is a terrible idea. That's a good sign. The obvious choice is never the right one. To quote Indiana Jones when told there's nothing to fear hear, "That's what scares me." Yes, I know Iv'e spent a lot of time trying to show that this decision is logical. That's because I'm not saying bad actors should get great roles. I'm saying actors with known talent should get roles, just not your first guess. Would you have thought of Joss Whedon to direct Avengers at first? But then, weren't you like, "Oh, that's perfect." I'm making this fancast because it is totally consistent with Marvel's casting history. It's a good choice, but not everyone's first choice. (Dear Marvel, I'm not a normal fanboy. I'm smart like you guys, listen to my cast, go with Hayden Christensen!) Despite the doubts of Ledger and Hathaway being cast in Nolan's Batman trilogy. There were people that made logical arguments for their casting. Here's mine if they cast Hayden Christenseen. So there. When do choices for comic book movies please everyone? Look at all the casting choices so far in the MCU and the director choices. Did you have doubts? Anyone remember when Ledger was first cast at the Joker or Hathaway as Catwoman? I know film, I know my sh*t. Yes, I have completely unrealistic dreams of being a filmmaker of top grossing movies. But like I said, I'm not your average fanboy, Iv'e put my thinking mode in the heads of Marvel and this is what should happen.