[ SECRET POST #3591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3591 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. http://i.imgur.com/rYxxfUP.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Or a sign of trust in the director and writer?

[(Anonymous)]

tbf, it's a little different with comic books than it is with novels/plays because a ton of people have written, for example, The X-Men. And a lot of those writers interpret the characters differently, which often causes characterizations to shift depending on who's writing. Just ask Magneto fans.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a lot of room for interpretation in Shakespeare too, though. Every single actor who takes on an iconic role like Hamlet or King Lear generally has to consider past performances when they decide how they're going to do it.

[likeadeuce]

That's still an interpretation of a single text, though. Comic book adaptations don't have a core text, and some of the texts contradict each other. If a director is using a specific comics story or run for inspiration, it makes sense to say the actor would benefit from being familiar with it, but that's not always the case -- especially if you're dealing with a character like Batman or Spider-Man that has many different interpretations over the years.

[otakugal15]

Yes, but it'd still be beneficial to the actor to read a sampling of said material, maybe even from various runs, to get a base idea of said character and then, if they end up liking a particular run, they can base their performance off said run. Granted, it may not be the most beneficial to the FILM, but at least the actor can say they had an idea after having read some of the core material instead of going in blind...like the dude who played the second Dumbledore. Hence why we got raging "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET GRAAAAA HARRY" as opposed to quietly fuming Dumbledore.

[(Anonymous)]

That's true, but even in a single text, there's a LOT of room for interpretation. That's how Shakespeare is. It's why no two performances of the same role are exactly alike, and why there are so many adaptations of each play. And Hamlet's been around a little longer than either Batman OR Spider-Man...

[kallanda_lee]

Yeah, came here to say. I feel like...either you'd have to read a LOT of the anon, from a lot of different writers, or you just...don't. If you only read a bit, you might end up with an interpretation of the character the creators are not going for.

[(Anonymous)]

Ang Lee's "Hulk" for example. A movie that actually got a lot right from the comics over the years, but missed that all people really wanted was "Hulk, Smash!" and basically the TV series. Of course that is a director rather than an actor, but the same principle. Without the pop culture familiarity, Lee picked up the wrong things.

You either have to be Deadpool level immersed in the role and familiarity, or just go with the script and whatever few scraps of pop culture you're bumped into.

[kallanda_lee]

You know, I sort of liked parts of Ang Lee's hulk, but looking at it from this angle...it makes so much sense.

[(Anonymous)]

I have nothing wrong with actors in comic book movies not reading the comics--after all, comic book movies tend to be pretty different from the comics they're based on (I think so, anyway; I'm not a big comics person but this has always been my impression). But the "it's to keep my character ~pure" thing is stupid.

[ketita]

I can kind of get why they wouldn't, since like people said, different interpretations of the characters can be insanely, wildly different, and in addition we're talking about a massive canon.
But I don't think there's anything praiseworthy about them not reading up on the character, and I think it would be better for them to read an iconic work or two, or one that seems close to the storyline they're working on or the portrayal they're doing.

Sometimes it smells to me a bit like "lol I'm not some ~comic book fan~ I'm a Pure Actor", which is obnoxious.

[fishnchips]

I think it's alright if they don't want to read up on the character before getting some general notes by the director about how they are supposed to approach the role because I can see that colouring the performance in a certain way. But as soon as they get that, a bit of background for the origins of the characters seems like a good, maybe even necessary basis to build the performance on.

I think there are a lot of factors at play, actually.

[(Anonymous)]

I think actors who are big fans of whatever character they are playing sometimes get passed over, as they do, yes, already have an interpretation of the character in their heads that the director may feel conflicts with the director's.

I also think that once someone gets the part, they maybe don't want the director to think that their interpretation is coming from anywhere but the movie script, so that if they need to fight for a character beat or something, the director won't just dismiss it.

I also think that almost every comic book character has some series or run that has been questionable/controversial and the comic company probably doesn't want an actor to comment on it (and the actor's managers may not either) and if they haven't read any of the comics, then that one guy who wants to start something at Comic Con can't ask, "So what did you think of that terrible thing that happened to X/that awful story line/that stupid retcon?"

Re: I think there are a lot of factors at play, actually.

[tree_and_leaf]

I think actors who are big fans of whatever character they are playing sometimes get passed over, as they do, yes, already have an interpretation of the character in their heads that the director may feel conflicts with the director's.


I've always suspected that Christopher Lee didn't get the role of Gandalf, which he would have loved and IMO been great at because of this. He's a big Tolkien fan, always wanted to play Gandalf, and he argued with Peter Jackson quite a lot as it was...

[(Anonymous)]

I can kinda get it. An actor works the script given, and takes the direction given. If they start getting too creative about it then they might be the actor formerly up for the role of Hamlet. Now directors and script writers who refuse to do the background reading, that is another matter.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the main problem would be choosing what canon from the comics to even go with. I can see how if a character has changed a lot or has been interpreted wildly differently by different authors throughout the years (which is very common in comics) picking one would be hard and trying to get a survey of representations could make the role muddled.

Not to mention the movie versions ARE different versions of the characters.

[nightscale]

Tbh the characterisations can very so much from writer to writer with the comics that it doesn't really bug me if an actor doesn't read them, it'd be nice if they skimmed them maybe so they can get a feel for the character but ultimately the people I'm going to be most concerned about knowing the comic-book character(at least the broad strokes) are the writers/directors of the movies themselves.

Plus the characters in the movies are different from their comic book iterations but for the most part it's in a way hat works for me.

[otakugal15]

I agree, honestly. It's also why, even though teh movie was a mess, I respect Hugh Jackman for reading the comics when he was filming the very first Wolverine movie.

[(Anonymous)]

While I like it when they read the comics, I can see why they'd say they didn't to avoid further intense questioning!

[(Anonymous)]

Comic books are wild. The interpretation of the characters vary writer to writer and all sorts of other wacky shit.

But still, I agree with you OP. I prefer an actor who is actually a fan of the character they play and at least has a passing knowledge of them rather than trying to go in blind.

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who plays Hamlet without reading the play is kind of fucked. The play is the script.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it is more akin to plays Hamlet without reading all the proto-Hamlet plays and sagas that Shakespeare ripped off for his adaptation. But then who does read those? So, your point not only stands but is all the stronger.

[(Anonymous)]

tbh this is one of the reasons why I can't stand Matt Smith as the Doctor

[arcadiaego]

I wish this comment meant you can't stand that he didn't read the Doctor Who comics because that would be such an unusual objection.