Hmm... I always imagined Hank McCoy sounding something like Dr. Crane, so it might not be the worst pick. But I do see your point on a larger scale about the "fame effect," and that's definitely why casting Russell Crowe as Wolverine would have been disastrous.

Anyway -- it's "universes." Remember my previous post a while back? Just as "octopi" is not a proper plural, neither is "universii." Those are examples of faux-Latin/Greek. The real plural of "octopus" is "octopodes," as it's Greek, and not Latin. But Greek and Latin words that have been adopted into English are properly pluralized by adding "s" or "es," anyway.

I know you were kidding with "universii," but the evil grammarian in me just can't help himself. Muahahaha!

Grammarian or Grammerian?

I'm not an X-Man guy, but Kelsey Grammer may be of the Obi-Wan variety. He's a hell of an actor. Look how well David Hyde Pierce (aka Niles Crane) pulled off the Spamelot gig.

Wow, such fire! I always thought Kelsey Grammer was a pretty good actor. Was I wrong?

I mean, I was never a rabid fan of the X-Men comics or the Cheers/Frasier shows, so I may not have the same attachment as most people-- but an actor is an actor. Becoming a new character is his job. If he's a professional and has any talent at all, he won't sound or act like Frasier. And the makeup artists have clearly done their job well enough that he doesn't look like him either (at least, not to me.)

Can't we cut the poor guy some slack, and at least wait 'til we've seen his performance before slamming him?

In general, I would agree with you on the big-name versus acting talent factor. I almost always prefer a nobody's performance to a star's. But that's because most stars are stars because of sex appeal, not acting ability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a big factor in Kelsey Grammer's fame.

I get what you're saying, Clive. But I'm going to wait until I see the movie until I pass judgment.

For instance, Alfred Molina totally inhabited the character of Doc Ock in the Spider-Man sequel. But Toby Maguire was still Toby Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst was still Kirsten Dunst.

Granted, Gammer has the unfortunate handicap of being associated with Dr. Frasier Crane for so long. But Woody managed to break out of the typecast.

Now for a totally geek fanboy comment: isn't Anna Paquin just the hottest as Rogue? Born in Canada, too.

Sure, I take the point that Grammer may well be a good actor. I never watched Cheers or Frasier, so I don't know much about his acting chops! I clearly took my grouchy pills today.

Dusty Bear, yes, Paquin is super-cute! And also unfamous enough to keep from triggering the fame effect. But I confess she didn't do much for me, because she seemed so radically unlike Rogue in the book -- totally different look, no accent, etc.

Universii -- heh, yes, that was a joke, though I remember your post, Dave!

And a geek fangirl followup comment: I totally think Gina Torres should be Wonder Woman in Joss Whedon's version - that would so kick ass, on so many levels.

The "Fame Effect" can work both ways though. Precisely because of his previous roles many would be inclined to immediately think of him as an intelligent doctor (or deranged killer thanks to the Simpsons). Perhaps that's something the casting directors value - the ability to drop an actor into a character role pre-loaded with traits the character is to possess...

Debcha, yes! Migod that would rock.

Garth, that's true -- an actor's famous roles clearly define him or her. The guys from the X-files are totally scarred/branded by that show; they are both filed deep in the Where Are They Now bin.

I used to bitch about this in the video store where I worked for years. The thing is, it's not always the case. Look at Fantastic 4--mostly lesser-known or unknown actors, and still a piece of crap. On the other hand, the most potent example of this is Ben Affleck as Daredevil.

I'm gonna disagree with you about the Star Wars movies, too... as far as I'm concerned, the only actors who aquitted themselves well at all in Eps I-III were Ewan MacGregor and Liam Neeson, who were also the only well-known ones at all.

It is not so much that they use people of questionable fame in these roles, that doesn't really bother me - but what really gets me is when they use traditionally comedic actors to play a role that has a certain macho persona. My favorite example would have to Micheal Keaton as Batman. I mean come on, Mr. Mom as Batman?!?

I did not have a problem with Ewan and Liam in Star Wars because they were not traditional comedic actors. I did have a problem with everyone else however, as I thought that their acting was incredibly labored.

I don't think HF was *that* well-known in 1976. He'd had a minor role in American Graffiti, but he'd never starred in a major picture. He got the role because he was Lucas' carpenter.

Quite true I never realized it. But you know what, it brings up the notion of if you didn't know something can be better, what you had was probably the best. Now I will think about that conciously instead of sub-conciously when seeing a comic movie.

But come to think of it, I think we have seen so many movies that we can easily block the effects you've talked about sub-conciously because most big movies uses famous actors that we all know, and in those movie we can easily disassociate them from the what movie meant them to be. For examply Tom Hanks as the survivor in Cast Away, we clearly won't ask ourselves: "hey this Tom Hanks better becareful etc etc"

I agree it's a bit different from comic charactors transformed to real life person, but they are close analogies.

Yeah, true.