Comments on: Back-To-Back Terrence Malick Movies Means No ‘Noah’ For Christian Bale, Will Michael Fassbender Take Over?

By: kitcon

kitcon — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

12 years a slave is also targeting a spring start and Fassbender's role looks to be bigger than Pitt's so he may not be free right away. Bale w/o a cape isn't that much bigger as a box office star — Terminator Salvation made less than 2X cost. The studio probably agreed w/ the choice of Fassbender as a replacement before he was approached.

By: Nolan

Nolan — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Recently watched "Hunger" and "Fish Tank" and I officially really like Fassbender. He's been good in everything I've seen him in, and he practically carried First Class. I'm not Bale's biggest fan, so hopefully this can get done. By the time Noah is ready to be released, Fassbender could very easily be a household name.

Also, Aronofsky probably has more clout this time around. A big, original sci-fi epic from the guy behind "pi" and "requiem for a dream" sounds a lot harder for a mass market to digest than big, biblical epic from the guy behind "the wrestler" and "black swan."

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Michael Fassbender is the hottest guy at the moment. seriously,.. well I like Bale, but i think Fassbender is more … let say approachable. Fassbender is really charismatic and honestly, i think will work better at the box office than Bale. I know Bale is Batman, and he is already famous. But Fassbender is like a meteor.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Sheesh, these two can never manage to work together, huh? First Batman Year One, then the Fighter, and now this. I'm not surprised given the Malick projects, but I am disappointed. Not that I don't appreciate Fassbender's work, but I think Bale would have been a much stronger choice.

By: gonad

gonad — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Bale is a rotten actor! The way he uses American accents during press junket interviews is so silly.

By: buntyhoven

buntyhoven — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Also, as much as I love Bale, didn't he seem something of an obvious choice for this? You get the impression he could do it in his sleep, which is why it might be a blessing in disguise that he had to drop out. We'll get to see Fassbender truly lead a giant tentpole, and meanwhile Bale gets to do two Malick films in a row.

By: David

David — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

It's probably for the best for everyone involved. You don't turn down Malick. You turn others down for him.

By: Simone

Simone — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Michael could lead this project on a $130 million budget… he's been in X-men as Magneto for cripes sake! He's been in '300' and 'Inglourious Basterds'. The boy is ready for the big leagues, and if he gains big awards for Shame, and 'Prometheus' opens good, the man is as good as gold. Just give it to him.

By: buntyhoven

buntyhoven — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

I'm not so sure Fassbender's such a risk on this one. They can sell it some sort of 300/Immortals-esque film from the director of Black Swan. A lot of those types of films have unknowns in the lead. Russell Crowe was not a major star when he was cast in Gladiator. Ditto Gerard Butler in 300. And Fassbender has some recognition as Magneto.

By: CL

CL — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:19:43 +0000

Disney okayed the 250 million $ John Carter of Mars with the relatively unknown Taylor Kitsch (who's got less acting cred than Fassbender, and who's headlining the upcoming Battleship stinker) but the Fass would have trouble getting this tentpole greenlit for 130 million $ on his name basis? Understandable, given his anonymity with the mainstream audience, but frustrating still.