Ossicle Wrote:You're right, he does look good. At first I thought Viggo Mortensen could be really good, but didn't realize he's very tall. I guess that is a mark against him.
Viggo Mortensen is five feet eleven inches tall. RJ -- when he stands to his full height -- is . . . um . . . five-eleven.
Ken V.
Ken Valentine Wrote:Viggo Mortensen is five feet eleven inches tall. RJ -- when he stands to his full height -- is . . . um . . . five-eleven.
Ken V.
ROFL! Ken, it's great to have you back! I, we, miss you and your inimitable sense of humor.
Reading is freedom.
The mind soars, no earthly cares,
no limitations.
A Maggers Haiku, 2005
Years ago my mother used to say to me... "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so smart or oh so pleasant."
Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.
You may quote me.
Elwood P. Dowd
Richard Kendrick Wrote:My vote is for Ryan Reynolds.
RIK
Ooo, that's a GOOD one. I hadn't thought of him but you're right.
Kenji Wrote:Viggo Mortensen is huge guy. He's too conspicuous. Jack is normal guy. If he went into crowd, nobody can recognize him.
He's not "huge" he's just taller than most actors. Most actors are very short. I'm pretty sure he's less than 6 feet tall. And as far as age goes, I'll feel lucky just to get one movie made! I wouldn't hold my breath for a sequel or a series. Sure it's a great story to keep going on and on and on, but the odds of the first one being so good, or so profitable that they'd want to make a sequel aren't good. Viggo will sell tickets, and he'd be a great Repairman Jack. Hollywood does a great job of making the 40 or 50 something year old actors stay in their mid 30's anyway.
Richard Kendrick Wrote:My vote is for Ryan Reynolds.
RIK
I LOVE LOVE LOVE Ryan Reynolds, but I'm just not sure he can control his wise cracking, wonderful sorta smirking self enough to be Jack.
Reading is freedom.
The mind soars, no earthly cares,
no limitations.
A Maggers Haiku, 2005
Years ago my mother used to say to me... "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so smart or oh so pleasant."
Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.
You may quote me.
Elwood P. Dowd
t4terrific Wrote:Hollywood does a great job of making the 40 or 50 something year old actors stay in their mid 30's anyway.
LOL......Botox, soft focus lenses, no close-ups, younger co-stars.....it works !!!
*
![[Image: 1129648598.gif]](http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/sherwoodflower/1129648598.gif)
t4terrific Wrote:Good actor, a little geeky though. He tries to make characters more suitable to his ideas rather than adjusting to be the written character. I like him better as a whiny guy. He's such a great weezle!! I see Jack as a little more ragged. Not limited to, but someone more like Mel Gibson was in Mad Max, Hugh Jackman in Swordfish, or Viggo Mortensen in A History of Violence. I really hope Viggo does accept the role, finally, but he'll need a dye job. I hope he doesn't pull the, "I've been doing too many macho roles so, no." attitude. I think he'll end up doing it and he'll be great. Everyone keeps talking about a Repairman Jack sequel, and the need for a young actor, but I wouldn't look that far ahead. I think the cart should go behind the horse. I'd worry more about trying to get one good Repairman Jack movie made, and then let the chips fall where they may. Most of the popular young actors wouldn't be willing to do a sequel anyway. They are too artsy to worry about making a great series of films. They don't want to get tied into a sequenced role.I guess you haven't seen American History X. Norton was the title role and he was jacked up. What a physical transformation he put on. He spent a lot of hours in the gym for that physique.
As far as Viggo goes, he is too old for RJ I believe. RJ is in his 30s whereas Viggo most definitely is not.
[QUOTE=law dawg]I guess you haven't seen American History X. Norton was the title role and he was jacked up. What a physical transformation he put on. He spent a lot of hours in the gym for that physique.
QUOTE]
I saw it. I still had a hard time thinking of him as a tough guy though. He was still Ed Norton, with tatoos and steroids, playing a tough guy.
Actors DO often use steroids to get big quick for movie roles. Nobody really talks about it but it is very common for both women and men. Hillary Swank took them for her role as a boxer too. She all but admitted it. She said she added 30 pounds of muscle in 30 days. She said every personal trainer she went to said it was not possible to do it in a year even. She then said she went to "another guy" who said sure, no problem. Arnold roided before roles where size mattered (T2 and T3 especially). Ed Norton Roided for American History X. Demi roided for GI Jane. Don't let them fool you, you can spend 24 hours a day in a gym, for 60 days and you won't even add 10 pounds of pure muscle. Not without chemical assistance. The chemical assistance is the thing that every one forgets to mention.
In all honesty, I think it's worth it in those cases. They took steroids for a couple of months to make millions and millions of dollars. The health risks are almost nonexistant, if they do it right, for a very short period of time. They weren't cheating anybody. They had a role, they needed to get bigger quick. It's a personal choice in that case, and I have no problem with it. If someone told me I could make $5 million, if I did steroids for a couple of months, I'd do it too.
On the other hand, I see guys regularly, in the gym, who want to get big to impress people. They aren't willing to put in the time to do it legit though. They want to take steroids to look good for girls. There's no real profit in it. That's stupid!! Are they going to dope forever? They'll die young for sure. Just to look good the easy way.
Steroids in sports is cheating. They need a level playing field and if one person is willing to sacrifice their health to get ahead, it puts those who aren't at a disadvantage. I agree with trying to keep sports clean.
For me, the worst thing about steroids, is that no one believes that muscular guys aren't doping. No matter how many times I tell people I'm clean, they still say, "Yeah right." I don't really care, but it still sucks that no one understands how much work you do to make small, incrimental, gains. They just say "steroids" and won't be swayed. I'm not even THAT big 5-11 and 225 lbs. I still get steroid accusations. That kind of sucks. Oh well.
QUOTE]
I saw it. I still had a hard time thinking of him as a tough guy though. He was still Ed Norton, with tatoos and steroids, playing a tough guy.
Actors DO often use steroids to get big quick for movie roles. Nobody really talks about it but it is very common for both women and men. Hillary Swank took them for her role as a boxer too. She all but admitted it. She said she added 30 pounds of muscle in 30 days. She said every personal trainer she went to said it was not possible to do it in a year even. She then said she went to "another guy" who said sure, no problem. Arnold roided before roles where size mattered (T2 and T3 especially). Ed Norton Roided for American History X. Demi roided for GI Jane. Don't let them fool you, you can spend 24 hours a day in a gym, for 60 days and you won't even add 10 pounds of pure muscle. Not without chemical assistance. The chemical assistance is the thing that every one forgets to mention.
In all honesty, I think it's worth it in those cases. They took steroids for a couple of months to make millions and millions of dollars. The health risks are almost nonexistant, if they do it right, for a very short period of time. They weren't cheating anybody. They had a role, they needed to get bigger quick. It's a personal choice in that case, and I have no problem with it. If someone told me I could make $5 million, if I did steroids for a couple of months, I'd do it too.
On the other hand, I see guys regularly, in the gym, who want to get big to impress people. They aren't willing to put in the time to do it legit though. They want to take steroids to look good for girls. There's no real profit in it. That's stupid!! Are they going to dope forever? They'll die young for sure. Just to look good the easy way.
Steroids in sports is cheating. They need a level playing field and if one person is willing to sacrifice their health to get ahead, it puts those who aren't at a disadvantage. I agree with trying to keep sports clean.
For me, the worst thing about steroids, is that no one believes that muscular guys aren't doping. No matter how many times I tell people I'm clean, they still say, "Yeah right." I don't really care, but it still sucks that no one understands how much work you do to make small, incrimental, gains. They just say "steroids" and won't be swayed. I'm not even THAT big 5-11 and 225 lbs. I still get steroid accusations. That kind of sucks. Oh well.