X-Men 2...Beast,Gambit &more

Can't be cast in CGI? I beg to differ: he can't be cast without CGI! If you try to put a big blue suit on him, he's going to come out looking really cheesy/ridiculous. Anyway, I dunno about Jude Law, but even so, I don't see Gambit acting anything like Dickie Greenleaf did...Gambit is always wisecracking, flirting, and messing around...and not in some proper English way. He's an informal southerner.

Did you not see how unreal Jar Jar looked when performing with the other actors?

Until such time as CGI can create a living, breathing human, it should not be used as a substitute for an actor.

Name one CGI character in a non-CGI film that impressed you with his acting ability.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

The dinosaurs from Jurassic Park. Still, they weren't acting, but hey looked real to me.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Sean Connery in that dragon movie

Dragonheart?? Very good point, forgot about him.

I agree that Dragonheart had a very believable CGI character. Other than, that, you're forgetting that it's not replacing an actor/human, it's replacing a CREATURE. Beast is like an animal. I'll be honest: a little bit of choppiness in the Beast's lines is far better than the ridiculous joke of a suit we'd probably be treated to if CGI were kept out of it!

Jar Jar looked pretty real to me.

Jar Jar looked real yes, but was annoying as hell.

Well, Einstein, this is why we call them "actors". And Jude Law can act up a storm. The guy's great.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Um, I was referring to bigvalbowski's comment, Steve, reproduced below:

I wasn't saying that he can't play anyone other than Greenleaf...I'm saying I don't think he should play Gambit that way. As for "acting up a storm" -- I don't see it. He's certainly talented, but I don't see him as mind-blowing...he doesn't make me forget that he's an actor the way, say, Robert Duvall does.

A dragon in "Dragonheart". A dinosaur in "Jurassic Park".

Sorry, I don't see Academy Award Nominations coming to these actors anytime soon.

Beast is an intellectual scholar who just happens to be very big and very muscular. He's not an animal.

The fact that he has blue skin should not be a hindrance. Wolverine had a yellow costume; Rogue's was green and yet they changed into black.

Beast needs to be hairy, not necessarily blue hairy. Give Rick Baker a call. He created how many original Ape creations for Planet of the Apes. A massive mutant would be a walk in the park.

By the way, that gives me a casting suggestion. Michael Clarke Duncan as Beast!

Duncan's voice sounds too much like a big dumb wrestler. We need someone with a very scholarly like voice, IMO. And no, Dragonheart didn't get an Academy Award: but honestly, since when is that to be expected of a comic book movie? Hardly a fair measure. You won't be getting an academy award from X-Men no matter how well you play your role.

Beast LOOKS a lot like an animal. Yes, I can see them changing character's wardrobes, but that's different from changing them as they naturally are...Wolverine, in the comics, can change into jeans. Beast cannot dye his entire body something other than blue.

A CGI beast would ruin the movie. The dinosaurs and the dragon looked great, but they weren't people, and no matter how mutant beast is, he still is a human, he's basically human size, and we know what beast looked like, with dragonheart and JP there wasn't really anything to compare it to.

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

Ya'll shouldn't dismiss this. Did you see how crisp and impressive the CGI Scooby-Doo looked? That's one craft that is on it's way up, my friends. You're all nuts if you've going to simply declare that one CGI character would ruin everything. Don't be so sure when you don't know what it would look like. Are you telling me you can't even imagine a Beast that would fit in well? I can.

CGI may be the cutting edge in creating characters that don't exist. I'm not saying they should use it every chance they get, but when a real life actor can't fill the shoes. Scooby looks very cool, but if you can't make the character look real enough to fool people, then don't do it in CGI.

what scooby doo movie are u talking about? J and SB's scooby doo wasnt cgi until he talked when they were high.

I'm talkin' 'bout the new Scooby Doo movie due out in 2002. I saw two shots of the CGI Scooby, and they look amazing.

Scooby's a dog. Until, a human can be created by CGI, then an actor will have to play Beast.

CGI still hasn't been able to animate the human face. Look at the Blue Fairy in AI. She was strikingly real but her mouth never opened when she spoke. It's very difficult for animators to copy our faces, especially our mouths. And Beast does a lot of talking.

Well, the Blue Fairy was supposed to look like a plastic/plaster/metal (not sure which) statue...so I don't know that they COULDN'T make her real. Anyway, yeah, Scooby is a dog, but he's a dog who does as much talking as Beast will...and he'll have plenty of expressions. Beast, even if he is human underneath, looks an awful lot like a large, takling animal. If Scooby can be made to look and move real (we'll have to see on the latter), including facial expressions, then I think Beast would be do-able. I guess we'll see. I do agree that makeup would be a viable alternative, though...sometimes I forgot how far that technology has come.