I'm part of a small and discredited minority that considers Jon Hamm a bad actor. Perhaps, bad is the wrong word since he certainly excels at a very specific and narrow range of characters and emotions and delivery... so perhaps lacking versatility is what I mean to say. Outside of Mad Men the quality of his acting is either the same essential character or frankly pretty poor in my opinion. I suspect his success has much more to do with the context of Mad Men, it's script, and what it gives him to work with than his own objective acting abilities (in contrast to, say, Bryan Cranston who has incredible material to work with as well, but shows far greater range in terms of an actor both in that show and outside of it).
With characters as iconic as DC's, I tend to hate celebrity casting which overshadows the iconography of the characters. It becomes about Clooney or Halle rather than the character. With Marvel's movies which have a sort of modern, popular, and sleazy sell-out feel to them it makes perfect sense to be casting Alba, Downey, or Jackson (heck, the comics themselves are already "casting" them in such roles) but this is in contrast to DC's risky art-house passion-project feel in films like Watchmen, Dark Knight, and Superman Returns where relative unknowns are cast or obscured so that the underlying material shines.
In either case, acting comes first. A no-name OR a celebrity with the perfect look is meaningless if he can't deliver... and it disturbs me how many times celebrities are tapped merely for their looks because the public is familiar with them. Similarly, I would never exclude a celebrity simply on the basis of their fame if they have the acting chops to bring to the role- it would be ludicrous to punish an actor for fame established on the basis of his ability to act! (ex: keeping Stewart out of the running because he's too familiar to comic fans)
But I digress.
Jon Hamm is too old, too short, too limited in acting range, and- though not essential for the actor- not a Superman guy. For the latter factor, the world at large is broken into spectrum of people who are either Superman guys or Batman guys. When the question is posed to them and they are required to answer, instantly on instinct without hesitation, "Superman or Batman?" (note the question lacks any factors or substance- it doesn't ask who is stronger, who would win, who you would like to be, etc. it is pure preference and instinct) people like Bruce Timm or Bryan Singer will, without hesitation say, "Batman." A person like Paul Dini will hesitate a second and say, "Batman" showing a preference for Batman but an understanding or appreciation for Superman. A person like Alan Burnett will hesitate a second and say, "Superman" under similar reasoning. There are but a handful of those in the comic industry who would say "Superman" unequivocally and without hesitation. Those are true Superman guys and those are the people who need to be making the film (writing, directing, producing).
Everyone else doesn't "get" Superman to the same extent or passion and tend to compromise in an effort to conform him to what they do get (which is the Batman spectrum). To Bryan Singer's credit, he did a whole lot of research and developed a certain amount of respect for Superman as a historical concept, but ultimately he only "got" Superman as reflected in the Donner film... his appreciation was mostly on a film level, a historical level, and an understanding of the theoretical gravity of the project... but he never "got" Superman as a concept or appreciated it as such... he was never a Superman guy... Singer's Superman never threw a single punch, was emasculated in his primary defining romantic relationship, and made impotent to do anything about it bearing the burdens of a dead race and world that had moved on... you might a believe a man could fly (again) but you did not want to be him. And if you can't get that last bit you don't get Superman.
Log in to comment