No Puck or CGI for Dinklage Comments -


Showing items 11 - 14 of 14
<<  <  1 2 
Mayhem101878 2/24/2013 6:02:32 AM

Actually twesaak after seeing him on a display add at Walmart for Game of Thrones I was thinking the same thing. He looks like he could be toad.

karas1 2/24/2013 10:50:07 AM

Look, Dinklage is a Dwarf (midget, little person, whatever the current PC term is)  Puck is a dwarf.  Hiring a dwarf actor to play a dwarf character is like hiring a black actress to play Storm.  You COULD cast a white actress and use makeup or CGI to make her look black but what would be the point?

Puck is the only Marvel character that I know of who is a dwarf (granted, I haven't read the X-Men for 15 years or more so there may be some new characters).  And Puck is a member of Alpha Flight, a superteam which has strong ties to the X-Men.

Even if Puck wasn't in the original storyline, if they had an actor of Dinklage's ability to play him they might add him in or substitute him for some other character who was in that storyline.  It's a reasonable supposition.  And I think Beast was the only "X-Man" in First Class who actually WAS on the original team.  All the others were characters from later years.

I think Fox writes the names of all possible characters on slips of paper and pulls them out of a hat to write their movies.  Why NOT Puck?

Well, if Singer says he won't be Puck I'm sure he knows what he's talking aobut.  It's his movie.  But it's not like it was a rediculous idea.

thesnappysneezer 2/25/2013 8:27:02 AM

Could he be Jahf inside the M'Krahn Crystal

MrEt 2/27/2013 11:27:53 AM

Well if he does play Trask I gues that means we are throwing out the X3 apperance of Bill Duke as Trask, not that I mind we can get rid of X3 in its entirety for all I care (except for seing Iceman as he should be)

<<  <  1 2 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.