@dstoltzfus - I liked both. I generally like stories that have a lot plotting and scheming and politics. Rome had that on a larger scale, concerning the entire nation; Spartacus had it on a more personal level. The show certainly lost a lot it Vengeance and War of the Damned - not just Andy Whitfield, that's a different story, but Batiatus and Solonius as key players in the "political" games.
@the_spyder - The thing with TWD is, I really want to like the show, I really do like the idea and concept and all. But the execution is painful to watch - no likable characters, insanely slow story progression, and the zombies seem more a minor inconvenience than an actual threat. X-Men movies, like I said - better than I expected, but generally they didn't make much sense. But the casting was spot on with a few exceptions.
What did translate well is indeed Game of Thrones, and from comic to movie, I liked the first Hellboy and Punisher: Warzone. Both did justice to the source material and I wasn't expecting that after seeing so many medicore to awful comic adaptions before.
@KidCarnival - it is funny but I kind of disagree with you on all points.
The Walking Dead is to my mind perfectly paced. There is a sense of anticipation and it isn't all rushed to be like a 90 min movie. The feeling is so like they are actually living in a world that is fully realized, not some slapped together movie.
And I find myself very much enjoying the characters. I really feel for Rick and the things he has gone through. Darryl is one of my favorites. I was really getting to actually think that Merl would work out as part of the group. When Glenn and Maggie were held captive by the Governor, I was really rooting for them. And even though Andrea really didn't know how to make a good decision, I still rooted for her.
yeah, the zombies aren't in every scene, but the story (from the TV perspective) is more about people surviving in a zombie apocalypse. Not zombies as the main cast. In that they overshadow everything that is done and every action that is taken. I like that.
As far as X-men, the only person that I thought was "Well cast" was Patrick Stewart. Although I thought that the majority played truely excellent attempts at the character (particularly Hugh Jackman), none of them were perfectly cast. Storm in particular I thought was HORRIBLY inappropriately cast, but that's me. I think that they were excellent movies despite the horrendous casting. I read an article about Hugh Jackman and how he had trouble getting into the ferocity of Wolverine. he does it and does it really well, but that was not a perfect from the beginning.
@the_spyder: I had about 600 words why TWD doesn't entertain me one bit, but that would probably completely derail the topic. So let's just say - I have nothing against the drama and all, I just have everything against naming a show with these stories "The Walking Dead". It's false advertising. If the title was "Playing House During Unspecified Apocalypse" (which is, I admit that, less catchy), I wouldn't complain. I think that's what I'm not seeing: how the zombies overshadow everything. They don't, not more than wild animals overshadow an Indiana Jones movie. Sure, they are somehow there and they are dangerous, but most of the time, it's about a guy searching artifacts in exotic places.
X-Men cast: Magneto, Phoenix, Wolverine, Professor X - all pretty good calls to me. The rest wasn't outstanding, but also not completely wrong. The only one that stood out as "wtf" was Pyro to me, mainly because of the lacking accent and changed backstory. In the Wolverine movie, oh boy, that was a disaster; same as First Class (though Shaw was spot on).
I guess we can agree to disagree on The Walking Dead.
As for X-Men, I agree that Magneto was also perfectly cast. Even more so than Prof X (a fact that I somehow forgot in my previous post??). And Mystique was very well done as well.
I liked what Famke did with the role of Phoenix, but she is not what I imagined as Jean Grey. She did a lot more with the role than I would have thought possible. But much like Hugh Jackman (who did a peerless job), she would not have been cast if I had anything to do with it. Then again, their lack might have been more to the detriment if I had been in charge (in some fantasy alternate reality).
I also agree that Pyro was completely wrong and should have been an Ausie merk and not some snot nosed kid. Same with Rogue (boy talk about absolutely completely wrong). And let's not even discuss Colossus and Kitty Pryde. Kelsey Grammer as The Beast was also a mis-cast in my opinion, but not so glaringly so as others.
But for all of that, I think most of the cast did fantastic jobs with what they were supposed to be in the movies.
I'd say discussing casting is right on track with the OP's intent.
Ya, just not the casting choices of random movies.
Rogue, I wasn't sure they knew who that was in the comics. She seemed based entirely on the emo version from the short-lived animated series, while everyone else was based on the regular comicverse. If I just compare to the animated version, it's not a bad casting, but this version was out of place and didn't match anyone else. I didn't really pay attention in Last Stand anymore, it was such a mess and basically a parade where every Marvel character was allowed 30 seconds screentime to walk through the background, and little else. Angel was not only a miscast, he was also... umm, why was he there again? It was bad writing and not developing any character notably. With a better story and less characters/more time for each, the not-THAT-awesome casting choices alone wouldn't make it a bad movie.
Another reason why a BG movie should stick with a smaller amount of characters than there are NPCs. Some simply have no significance for the plot, so better leave them out than try to construct a way to squeeze them in the story. Faldorn, Eldoth, Skie, generally the mid/late game NPCs with the exception of Yeslick, who could be a temporary companion during the mines, would not make any sense.
See, I could (jokingly) totally see them doing something like 'Clue' where at key points they had 3-4 different 'Versions' of the movie. (this is all a joke folks) If you got version A, your party was Cannon 'Good' party. If you got version B, you got the Evil party. etc....
A make your own adventure movie? That would certainly be something new, with much potential to fail or at least be misunderstood by the audience... which means we found a director. Hello there, Quentin Tarantino, interested?
@KidCarnival - and yes, there have been many versions of the X-men over the years in both TV and even in the Comics. Being a die-hard comic fan from back in the late 70s - early 80s, I prefer the classic Brotherhood of Evil Mutants version of Rogue and company. Of course that means that Mystique would have to be a little bit older instead of the luscious Rebecca Romijn, but I can live with that discontinuity.
Yeah, leaving out the backstory of Mystique being her "mother" was ok. If they had included every bit of backstory about every character, it would have been asked too much from a movie (or even a trilogy).
Comments
@the_spyder - The thing with TWD is, I really want to like the show, I really do like the idea and concept and all. But the execution is painful to watch - no likable characters, insanely slow story progression, and the zombies seem more a minor inconvenience than an actual threat. X-Men movies, like I said - better than I expected, but generally they didn't make much sense. But the casting was spot on with a few exceptions.
What did translate well is indeed Game of Thrones, and from comic to movie, I liked the first Hellboy and Punisher: Warzone. Both did justice to the source material and I wasn't expecting that after seeing so many medicore to awful comic adaptions before.
WEEEEE! Off topic!
The Walking Dead is to my mind perfectly paced. There is a sense of anticipation and it isn't all rushed to be like a 90 min movie. The feeling is so like they are actually living in a world that is fully realized, not some slapped together movie.
And I find myself very much enjoying the characters. I really feel for Rick and the things he has gone through. Darryl is one of my favorites. I was really getting to actually think that Merl would work out as part of the group. When Glenn and Maggie were held captive by the Governor, I was really rooting for them. And even though Andrea really didn't know how to make a good decision, I still rooted for her.
yeah, the zombies aren't in every scene, but the story (from the TV perspective) is more about people surviving in a zombie apocalypse. Not zombies as the main cast. In that they overshadow everything that is done and every action that is taken. I like that.
As far as X-men, the only person that I thought was "Well cast" was Patrick Stewart. Although I thought that the majority played truely excellent attempts at the character (particularly Hugh Jackman), none of them were perfectly cast. Storm in particular I thought was HORRIBLY inappropriately cast, but that's me. I think that they were excellent movies despite the horrendous casting. I read an article about Hugh Jackman and how he had trouble getting into the ferocity of Wolverine. he does it and does it really well, but that was not a perfect from the beginning.
X-Men cast: Magneto, Phoenix, Wolverine, Professor X - all pretty good calls to me. The rest wasn't outstanding, but also not completely wrong. The only one that stood out as "wtf" was Pyro to me, mainly because of the lacking accent and changed backstory. In the Wolverine movie, oh boy, that was a disaster; same as First Class (though Shaw was spot on).
As for X-Men, I agree that Magneto was also perfectly cast. Even more so than Prof X (a fact that I somehow forgot in my previous post??). And Mystique was very well done as well.
I liked what Famke did with the role of Phoenix, but she is not what I imagined as Jean Grey. She did a lot more with the role than I would have thought possible. But much like Hugh Jackman (who did a peerless job), she would not have been cast if I had anything to do with it. Then again, their lack might have been more to the detriment if I had been in charge (in some fantasy alternate reality).
I also agree that Pyro was completely wrong and should have been an Ausie merk and not some snot nosed kid. Same with Rogue (boy talk about absolutely completely wrong). And let's not even discuss Colossus and Kitty Pryde. Kelsey Grammer as The Beast was also a mis-cast in my opinion, but not so glaringly so as others.
But for all of that, I think most of the cast did fantastic jobs with what they were supposed to be in the movies.
I'd say discussing casting is right on track with the OP's intent.
Rogue, I wasn't sure they knew who that was in the comics. She seemed based entirely on the emo version from the short-lived animated series, while everyone else was based on the regular comicverse. If I just compare to the animated version, it's not a bad casting, but this version was out of place and didn't match anyone else. I didn't really pay attention in Last Stand anymore, it was such a mess and basically a parade where every Marvel character was allowed 30 seconds screentime to walk through the background, and little else. Angel was not only a miscast, he was also... umm, why was he there again? It was bad writing and not developing any character notably. With a better story and less characters/more time for each, the not-THAT-awesome casting choices alone wouldn't make it a bad movie.
Another reason why a BG movie should stick with a smaller amount of characters than there are NPCs. Some simply have no significance for the plot, so better leave them out than try to construct a way to squeeze them in the story. Faldorn, Eldoth, Skie, generally the mid/late game NPCs with the exception of Yeslick, who could be a temporary companion during the mines, would not make any sense.
It's a joke folks.