Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan

At least on youtube he is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTiRnqnvDs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgeeksofdoom.com%2F2009%2F05%2F24%2Ffakey-trailer-sunday-nathan-fillion-as-green-lantern-bioshock-movie-trailer%2F&feature=player_embedded

...That was a surprisingly well done fan-trailer.

Someone has way too much time on their hands.

Too bad he is typecasted as the captain on the show firefly that was cancelled by FOX.

At least i think that is who this dude looks like to me.

What is he missing a paycheck now that serenity came out in 2005, and now its 2009.  Lol.

Maybe Whedon will give the poor guy a role on dollhouse.

I mean seeing him as the green lantern imho is as silly an idea as obi wan kenobi as a catholic priest in angels and demons, whoops i mean ewan "i'm not typecast as obi wan" mcgregor.  Maybe should have listened to his uncle Denis who said don'y do it it will do nothing for your career.  You know Denis Lawson played Wedge Antilles in the star wars trilogy,lol.

skyjedi said:

Maybe Whedon will give the poor guy a role on dollhouse.

What is he missing a paycheck now that serenity came out in 2005, and now its 2009.  Lol.

Nathan Filion stars in a current TV series. Not sure how well his show is doing, but it isn't like he hasn't starred in anything since Serenity in '05. He has been in a movie or two since then also, not every actor is like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt who play in film after film after film after film, sometimes with two or more films in the theter at a time to the point where you get sick of seeing their girly little faces. Thankfully, most decent actor don't find themselves caught up in that fadish branding.

Rather see a good film staring good actors than see a film built around an actor because of his "star power!" and popularity.

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Oh i know i was just being a typical smartass as usual.  Just pointing out who the average joe thinks he is if they know of him at all.  Those browncoats seem to think he is like the second coming or something, anyhow.

Hollywood generally does not cast unknown's as leads in superhero flicks with the possible exception of a christopher reeve or brandon routhe.  Or a mostly unknown to the average popcorn flick goer Christian Bale until he was in batman begins.  But the studios had Robert Downey as Iron Man.  They cast the hulk remake with that well known actor from the fight club movie.

Okay so i pretty much proved that they usually do cast unknowns or very little known people.  Even though the studios claim they only cast stars in their films.

It really has never been a secret that the green lantern corps were a ripoff of E.E. Doc Smith's Galactic Patrol.  But then again Lucas borrowed quite liberally from that as well for the jedi in star wars.

The classic green lantern books would make a decent superhero/ sci fi movie.  Never read the moderns.  I know the originals were supposed to be science fiction.  Like magazine pulp fiction that the dime novels and comics used to do only better.

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Not really. Good way to turn it around and blame the audience, but that isn't very fair. Some actors really are typecast to certain roles. Why? Because they play the same sort of role over and over again. Is that the audiences' fault that they have a hard time imagining that actor in any other role, when that is the only kind of role they have seen them in? Hardly! If an actor doesn't want to be typecast, all they have to do is branch out a bit. You see some actors and are blow away at their ability to do different things, and then you hear Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler have a new comdey out, and decide to skip it because you have seen the last five movies he has been in and can barely distinguish one from the other.

It is not the duty of the audience to not be "lazy" or "stupid" and suspend their belief that this character played in the same way by the same actor as a character different movie are two entirely different and unique individuals. If and actor is worth his salt he will convince you of this, regardless of your level of intelligence or your incentive to work at convincing yourself.

C3PX said:

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Not really. Good way to turn it around and blame the audience, but that isn't very fair. Some actors really are typecast to certain roles. Why? Because they play the same sort of role over and over again. Is that the audiences' fault that they have a hard time imagining that actor in any other role, when that is the only kind of role they have seen them in? Hardly! If an actor doesn't want to be typecast, all they have to do is branch out a bit. You see some actors and are blow away at their ability to do different things, and then you hear Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler have a new comdey out, and decide to skip it because you have seen the last five movies he has been in and can barely distinguish one from the other.

It is not the duty of the audience to not be "lazy" or "stupid" and suspend their belief that this character played in the same way by the same actor as a character different movie are two entirely different and unique individuals. If and actor is worth his salt he will convince you of this, regardless of your level of intelligence or your incentive to work at convincing yourself.

 I agree this is a fair way to say that roles are given to certain actors who play certain types of roles.  But their are always those audience members who see Tom Hanks as forrest gump in every movie he does, or harrison ford as han solo and indiana jones in every movie he does as well.  Which is not quite fair.  But usually if an actor gets a once in a lifetime role and then flaws it so flawlessly and memorably that is the character people immediately see the actor as.  Some times directors even cast to type like lucas did for star wars.  Mark Hamill is indistinguishable from Luke Skywalker, as is Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia.

Anyways convincing the audience comes after they first have to convince the casting person on a movie.  And some actors regardless of talent get trapped in their roles.  Like Mark Hamill did as Luke Skywalker.  And really only got the respect he deserved after years of voice over work.  People still claim he is and was a bad actor even though he was nominated for a tony award for appearing in the broadway play amadeus as mozart. 

Without him i don't think i would be a fan of star wars.  The character he created on screen i totally bought as a kid because of the humanity of the performance and his character was the easiest for children to identify with. He made the movies real to me. 

Hayden on the other hand could not sell the concept of Anakin Skywalker and the later 2 prequel films if he even tried.  I mean i have seen him in enough other films to say imho he is an awful actor.  He might be a decent person and a nice kid as the production team said he was.  He had the physicality for the role and he had the look.  But he could not do anything except look sullen.  He even looked like he was bored.  Lucas should have involved him somehow in the creative process to at least get him into the role.

I still believe with a better character director an actors director could have gotten a good enough performance out of hayden.  Lucas "faster and more intense"  means a lot of nothing and hot air.  Wow he can do manic action.  But he can't make us care for his characters.

The first prequel film while far from perfect at least had some humanity to it and emotion.  What little there was.  The later 2 films are emotionally barren on a purely human level.  the films are sterile and without life.  But are perfect special effects reels.  Or great to splice into video games as cut scenes.

And when i say emotion i mean to get the audience involved in the story.  I don't mean the emo thing with whiny hayden.  Or the over the top music that demands you feel something in these lifeless excercises in colors, movement and sound.  Episode III missteps quite a bit but feels alive at some points but not enough it is towards the end of the film and the good parts are intersparsed with sillyness and ridculouslness on a grand scale.  Plus there were maybe one or 2 moments in episode II.  But still that is the weakest of the three films and is a dud.

I didn't say "audience", I said "people".  Producers, directors and casting agents are people too.

Yes, audiences typcast actors into roles too, but that's as a result of the decisions made by the Hollywood suits making films and shows in the first place.