Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
I'm trying really hard to explain to you guys that you can't just say "Hey he looks the part put him in the cape" and that has proved similar results to walking into a church and knocking over the crucifix.
What do I have to say? How do I express the ideas that a good actor who looks the part doesn't automatically equal a successful outing beyond simply saying it (as I've been saying consistently... which is somehow all over the place)?
Let me try one more time to put it in terms you'll hopefully understand: Based on what I've seen of Hamm, I dfon't feel he'd be a good Batman. It's hard to explain, but I just don't see him as a good Batman, I think he could handle Bruce Wayne, but he needs to play more than just that. I get that yes he's a muscular guy with black hair and a strong chin... but that doesn't mean he'd be perfect for the cowl. There is a dichotomy to the role of Batman that few people manage... Bruce Wayne and Batman are two sides of the same coin, they may be in the same body but they are two different personas and must be played differently... and it's the identity that prowls the shadows that I think would trip up Hamm, where as I believe he could be great as the identity that prowls the ballrooms of Gotham's finest clubs.
People, when fan casting, generally just take good actors and force them in roles based on looks... but there is a lot more to being good for a role than looking the part. Like when casting for the original Superman movie came around, Clint Eastwood was high in the running to be casted because of his popularity his having black hair and a muscular build... but does anybody seriously think Eastwood would have been a good Superman? He was also almost cast as James Bond... again... really? I won't deny Eastwood being a good actor, or that he's perfect for some roles... but all actors have limitations, no matter how good they are. Speaking of James Bond, Cary Grant was also almost cast, and despite my being a Grant fan... he would have been a horrible Bond. Consider also all the men who turned down being Han Solo (amongst them Al Pacino). Yes, Harrison Ford and Al Pacino both have a "rogue" look about them, they are only two years apart in age, and, yes, they have some similar features... but does anyone regret that Ford went on to pilot the Falcon across the universe? No? Didn't think so. This example is one of the most damning to Hamm, because let's face it Pacino is one of the all time greats and even he has roles that he could have the look for... but just wouldn't be great in. Is this to say that I'm trashing Pacino? Far from it, his roles in movies like Serpico, Scarface, Godfather I and II, Dog Day Afternoon, and others have shown how he has range and is just an all around good actor.
Basically, my feelings are this: Hamm is a good actor and has a bright future... but that future shouldn't include a turn as the Caped Crusader.
How could you possibly know if he'd be a good Batman or not, though? Because he's never played a superhero before?