›

Cast The Movie

daltysmilthdaltysmilth
edited July 2011 in Back to the Future
Okay, let's pretend that Universal was so impressed with Telltale's work on BTTF: The Game that they decide to adapt it into a live-action movie. (I know it wouldn't happen, it's just for the sake of discussion.) With that premise in mind, who would you cast in the various roles?

Here's my list so far:

Doctor Emmett L. Brown/Future Citizen Brown: Christopher Lloyd, of course.

Marty McFly: Sir A.J. Locascio... I know he doesn't really look like Michael J. Fox, but he's got the acting chops, he can do the voice, and he knows the character

Young Emmett: Matt Smith... best known as the current Doctor Who. Yeah, again, he doesn't look like Christopher Lloyd, but he's definitely got the same style of physicality as Chris, and a similar vocal range. Every time I see him act, I can't help but think of Christopher Lloyd if he was younger and also British.

Anyway, that's all I've got so far.

Comments

  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2011
    I find it amusing that someone can actually think the reason a company would make an adaptation of something would be because they were impressed with it. Do you think that Superman movies were only made because studio executives were "impressed" with the original comics? That Back to the Future sequels would have been made if Universal executives had been "impressed" with the first film, but it had been a financial flop?
  • daltysmilthdaltysmilth
    edited July 2011
    RKO hired Orson Welles to make a movie and gave him total artistic control over the project despite the fact that he was only 24 years old at the time and he had never directed a movie before. And he was already a controversial figure due to his War Of The Worlds broadcast. They had to know full well that hiring him and giving him that much control over his movie could turn out to be a very bad investment for them, yet they did it anyway. Why? Because they were impressed with his work.

    Anyway this is a hypothetical scenario, so who says it has to make sense? Now if you're not going to contribute to this thread, then I ask you to go bother someone else.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2011
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    RKO hired Orson Welles to make a movie and gave him total artistic control over the project despite the fact that he was only 24 years old at the time and he had never directed a movie before. And he was already a controversial figure due to his War Of The Worlds broadcast. They had to know full well that hiring him and giving him that much control over his movie could turn out to be a very bad investment for them, yet they did it anyway. Why? Because they were impressed with his work.

    Anyway this is a hypothetical scenario, so who says it has to make sense? Now if you're not going to contribute to this thread, then I ask you to go bother someone else.
    It says a lot that you had to go back nearly a century, to a single action of a now-defunct company that was unprecedented at the time and simply has not been repeated in the 70 years hence. Furthermore, to state that Welles was controversial for causing a panic that was entirely made up by the press is completely ridiculous and ignorant.

    Furthermore, at the time of his work in Hollywood, it was still a young industry, still figuring out what worked. He had already proven himself(financially) in the fields of theater and radio, analogous fields of entertainment production. He had been shown to consistently make hits in both, and was certainly a famous figure. To say that RKO's handling of Kane was unremarkable would be wrong, sure, but to say that they jumped in based on blind faith due to liking his work in the same way an audience member loves a work of art is to simply be wrong.

    I suppose I could make up ridiculous hypothetical scenarios as well for threads, such as "If Telltale made a second season because they found some jellybeans in a Crackerjack box, who should be the main playable character?", but that doesn't mean people won't focus on the completely ludicrous starting sentence. I would have drawn attention to that part by saying something that simply does not make sense when talking about the way Telltale makes decisions.
  • daltysmilthdaltysmilth
    edited July 2011
    Okay, fine. You win. Obviously this is not at all a topic worth discussing because it's a completely illogical premise. So moderators, please lock this thread so that no one need sully themselves with such a stupid idea as a studio deciding to make a movie based on the success of a game. I thought it was an interesting idea that might make for some interesting discussion, but obviously I am a complete idiot, so everyone disregard everything I say from now on.

    Is that what you want to hear?
  • GaryCXJkGaryCXJk
    edited July 2011
    I'm impressed at how Rather Dashing can kill a topic that easily. Or any topic.
  • daltysmilthdaltysmilth
    edited July 2011
    Because, after all, Rather, your opinions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo well-respected on this forum, I can only assume that everyone else would feel as you do, that this is a topic that is not even worth wasting time speculating about. I mean, you obviously have better things to do, so I should thank you for taking a little of your precious time to point out the error of my ways, shouldn't I? Thank you.
  • daltysmilthdaltysmilth
    edited July 2011
    By the way, 70 years is more than a decade.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited July 2011
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    Okay, fine. You win. Obviously this is not at all a topic worth discussing because it's a completely illogical premise. So moderators, please lock this thread so that no one need sully themselves with such a stupid idea as a studio deciding to make a movie based on the success of a game. I thought it was an interesting idea that might make for some interesting discussion, but obviously I am a complete idiot, so everyone disregard everything I say from now on.

    Is that what you want to hear?
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    Because, after all, Rather, your opinions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo well-respected on this forum, I can only assume that everyone else would feel as you do, that this is a topic that is not even worth wasting time speculating about. I mean, you obviously have better things to do, so I should thank you for taking a little of your precious time to point out the error of my ways, shouldn't I? Thank you.
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    By the way, 70 years is more than a decade.

    8k4iR.jpg
  • IrishmileIrishmile
    edited July 2011
    OK.... be nice everyone... Dashing has a right to his opinion... AND this thread is perfectly fine as a topic.. it was proposed as a theoretical situation and not something that was LIKELY to happen... there is no reason you all cant be nice to each other.... We are all here for love of the same things after all.

    I like AJ as Marty.. I would have to see him doing some legit acting but we can not deny he knows the character

    Doc could still be Christopher Loyd in my oppinion

    as for the rest of the cast Im not sure

    CAN we drop it so I do not have to lock the thread up?... I hate censoring things.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2011
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    By the way, 70 years is more than a decade.
    Oh hey, that's a good use of the edit button. I rewrote that paragraph once over and, the second time, I must have typed "Decade" rather than the intended "Century". Luckily, minor grammatical snafus don't make a point wrong, so I'm not in too much trouble here. On the other hand, it is considered to be something of a faux pas to make several posts in a short span of time when editing the original post, utilizing the same button I just used to tidy up a minor grammatical error, is a good deal more convenient.
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    Okay, fine. You win. Obviously this is not at all a topic worth discussing because it's a completely illogical premise. So moderators, please lock this thread so that no one need sully themselves with such a stupid idea as a studio deciding to make a movie based on the success of a game. I thought it was an interesting idea that might make for some interesting discussion, but obviously I am a complete idiot, so everyone disregard everything I say from now on.

    Is that what you want to hear?
    Not particularly. After all, I never said that a film couldn't be made based on a "successful" game. After all, "successful" games have a great deal of what markers like to refer to as "Mindshare", which is a major consideration when deciding what to adapt into a feature film. The Back to the Future game, however, seems to have less "mindshare" than the actual films, and so a film adaptation of this material rather than simply producing new material(most likely through a remake) is somewhat unlikely. I also don't know how "Match the face to the other face" is an interesting discussion, but whatever, that wasn't the point anyway. The point was that, even if the conversation possibilities are completely interesting, the set-up for the hypothetical scenario was laughable and drew attention to itself.
    daltysmilth wrote: »
    Because, after all, Rather, your opinions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo well-respected on this forum, I can only assume that everyone else would feel as you do, that this is a topic that is not even worth wasting time speculating about. I mean, you obviously have better things to do, so I should thank you for taking a little of your precious time to point out the error of my ways, shouldn't I? Thank you.
    I'm not sure where I implied that I have better things to do or that any given discussion is not worthwhile. You've so entirely misunderstood the post to the point of absurdity. It wasn't "The ridiculous setup means the conversation isn't worthwhile" so much as "The ridiculous setup draws attention to itself regardless of the content of the actual subject".
    GaryCXJk wrote: »
    I'm impressed at how Rather Dashing can kill a topic that easily. Or any topic.
    If that were the case, the Whatever's On Your Mind thread would have stopped LONG ago, since that's a thread that I actually dislike.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited July 2011
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Oh hey, that's a good use of the edit button. I rewrote that paragraph once over and, the second time, I must have typed "Decade" rather than the intended "Century". Luckily, minor grammatical snafus don't make a point wrong, so I'm not in too much trouble here. On the other hand, it is considered to be something of a faux pas to make several posts in a short span of time when editing the original post, utilizing the same button I just used to tidy up a minor grammatical error, is a good deal more convenient.

    Oh look, you used a comma where you should have used a period and capitalized the word to make a new sentence. Now it's a run on sentence. By all rights now, you have to SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! You're a prick! A PRICK! A PRICK! YOU'RE A PRICK! A PRICK! A PRICK! YOU'RE A PRICK! DIE! DIE PRICK DIE! YOU GO TO HELL PRICK! YOU DIE DOWN THERE WITH SATAN YOU PRICK! YOU DIE! PTOOIE!

    Thank you, dalty, for teaching me the proper way to conduct a conversation. Now where was I? Oh right.

    EAT DICK YA POOFTER! DIE POOFTER DIE!
  • IrishmileIrishmile
    edited July 2011
    This is why we cant have nice things.
This discussion has been closed.