Worst casting decisions ever made in movies

annanake

Sr Member
Aaliyiah or howerver you spell it Queen of the Damened .

really everyone else in the movie as well too.

they killed a potential franchise to showcase a singer instead of serving a great story .

and then of course she dies in a completely avoidable plane wreck .
 

gedmac66

Sr Member
So what i'm seeing here is everyone has a problem with every Lois Lane that's been on the big screen :)
That actress ( can’t recall her name ) who played the lead detective in Castle , has also lent her voice to the character in a couple of DC animated films IIRC .
She’d make a pretty cool Ms Lane :love:
 

Darth Lars

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane in Superman Returns beats Margot Kidder hands down.
Kate Bosworth in Superman Returns is an example of weird casting IMHO. The actress was 22-23 y/o, looked 22 y/o and was playing a seasoned journalist and mother of a five-year old son. Would she have started her career at Daily Planet and got pregnant at 17? It looked unbelievable to me as soon as she appeared on screen.

Claire Foy as Lisbeth Salander, I think Claire is a great actress but I just dont buy her as Lisbeth. Not like I did Rooney Mara anyway.
Which reminds me of another example of a too young actor: Sverrir Gudnason playing Mikael Blomkvist in that movie. In the books and previous movies, he was a generation older than Lisbeth, not almost the same age.
 

Edraven99

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
She's what I would consider the girl next door though.
I think that's kind of the problem I had with her casting. I know what Rami was trying to do; she was supposed to be an amalgam of Gwen Stacy and MJ. But in the comics MJ Watson was the Veronica to Gwen's Betty and MJ was supposed to be the trendy model/party girl which I didn't buy from Dunst for a second.

On the topic of Gwen though, I have to say that I *did* like Emma Stone as Gwen in the reboot series.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
The Godfather: Diane Keaton
I'll see your Diane Keaton (whom I think is perfectly fine as Kay), and raise you a Sofia Coppola in Godfather III.


A few quick observations on Godfather III.

1. It would've been better under its original title (The Death of Michael Corleone).

2. It's an entirely unnecessary story that basically apes the structure of the first film.

3. All that said, it's...you know, tolerable....

4. ...with the exception of Sofia Coppola who, while now an apparently talented director, was AWFUL on camera and had no business in the role. Had Winona Ryder been able to act in it, I have no doubt she would have done much, much better in the part, and the film as a whole would have benefited. But Coppola was awful. Her line delivery is just so flat and emotionless, and I just do not see how she's supposed to be so irresistibly attractive to Vincent. I'm not saying that she's unattractive, but rather that nothing about her performance sells me on Vincent being unable/unwilling to give her up or even why he's drawn to her in the first place.

5. Also, Al Pacino's hair is seriously weird. I don't get why he did that.
 

The Searcher

Sr Member
I'll see your Diane Keaton (whom I think is perfectly fine as Kay), and raise you a Sofia Coppola in Godfather III.

AWFUL on camera and had no business in the role. But Coppola was awful. Her line delivery is just so flat and emotionless, and I just do not see how she's supposed to be so irresistibly attractive to Vincent. I'm not saying that she's unattractive, but rather that nothing about her performance sells me on Vincent being unable/unwilling to give her up or even why he's drawn to her in the first place.

5. Also, Al Pacino's hair is seriously weird. I don't get why he did that.
The answer to number four is just nepotism. I mean, would you seriously expect Coppola to not cast his own daughter?
Funny how that works, especially when you find out Coppola is Nicholas Cage’s uncle...
As for number 5, no one will ever know. I think some questions are best left unanswered.
 

Richard Baker

Sr Member
Shatner cast his daughter in Star Trek V as a bridge officer- her ridiculous hair looked like a disguise from 'Mars Attacks'
 

Strikerkc

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I like how this thread seems to be filled with people who are making choices based on the fact that a movie didn't match the fan fiction they wanted, and less on the content and context of the film.

"Lois lane didn't look the supers hot." Man, it's a real bummer that they were going for "pushy news reporter that didn't make many friends" as her version of the character, and Clark had to love her for who she was as a person.

"I wouldn't look twice at Gwyneth Paltrow." Yes. Yes, you would. And again, the character is supposed to be loved by Tony because of who she is, not cause she's some piece of meat. It's because she cares about him. Again, wouldn't want our heroes to have to love someone for more than simply having child baring hips.

"Why did they cast this dude as magneto? He's old, and not strong." Good god, so a character who's super power has nothing to do with being strong, and all about being able to manipulate magnetism, while being deviously brilliant has to look buff? And who cares that the root of his character motivation in the film specifically revolves around him having been in nazi concentration camps, no need to cast an actor old enough to fit the timeline, lets make him a 32 year old body builder.

"Flash can only be big and mean, he can't be a character that is simply a foil to Peter, what kind of garbage story telling is that?" Totally right, the only antagonist to a nerdy kid can be a big foot ball player, not another smart nerdy kid, that's boring. Lets just ignore the fact that the high school was a technical and science high school, and add one, big, dumb, mean, stupid, football player.

"Mary Jane as a well rounded and interesting character? Screw that, just gimme some big titts and red hair!"

To those of you pointing to poor performances, and weak portrayals of what should have worked, I salute you.
 
Top