Gotham....and other comic book series.

[lovecraft68]

Couldn't get into Sleepy Hollow, didn't like the chicks acting skills.

Agreed, but the whole thing is so tongue in cheek it doesn't bother me.

 

[sheablue]

I'll put in my two cents because I'm such a sucker for all of the comic book shows/movies.

I haven't read too many comics. Mostly when I was young, in the '80s, reading my brother's and cousins' X-men, G.I. Joe and Spiderman.

I'm a HUGE Walking Dead fan, but I've never read the comics, I think I will at some point, after the series ends. (Don't let it ever end!!!)

That being said, I really enjoy comic book TV shows and movies. I love Agents of Shield ... I love how the characters interact with each other, and I love Clark Gregg's portrayal of Agent Coulson.

I'm enjoying Gotham so far, though there is something about it I don't like. Maybe Det. Gordon is just too uber serious? It needs some levity? That's what I like about Agents of Shield, the Joss Whedon humor.

I'm looking forward to Constantine, I hope it lives up to the hype.

I loved Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, I loved the first Iron Man (the others were just ok) I loved Nolan's Batman movies, but HATED the most recent Man of Steel (well, the first half was good but the second half was stupid.) I liked the first Burton Batman movie, but again, I was pretty young when that came out. The Spiderman movies ... I haven't seen the newer ones but I remember liking the Tobey Macguire ones ... though I was a bit younger back then.

I haven't seen the Captain America movies, though I mean to. I liked Thor, but not as much as the Avengers.

Maybe I just like Joss Whedon. (Who am I kidding, I LOVE Joss Whedon!)

I gave up on Arrow after the first season because I thought the acting was terrible and the flashback scenes laughable. I don't think I'll watch The Flash, I've got too much TV going on now as it is.

Oh, X-Men. I liked the first 2 or 3 movies quite a bit. But then it got really confusing with all of the Wolverine movies and then the other movies ... I'm interested in Days of Future Past but I don't know any more which movies precede it, or it I saw them.

That's my rambling two cents ...

If we're talking horror, though, has anyone seen Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods? Now that was genius!

 

[caramelheat]

Never seen Joss Whedon' s Cabin in the Woods, is it new? LOVED firefly/ Serenity even the comics were pretty good. Liked Buffy but couldn't get into Dollhouse. I liked what he did with the Avengers movie.
I also couldn't do Arrow but will try again this season. I must say Flash was actually watchable.

 

[Litoname]

Being a huge Batman fan I don't think Gotham is great. But at least it's something Batman related. There are currently no other TV shows out and the next movies is a while off so I will take whatever they offer. It's also kind of refreshing seeing a different point of view.

Arrow and Flash are good, Flash just started but looks promising. Again, like Gotham I can't complain too much because it's at least something. Which is better than no show at all.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Spider Man 3? Oh, come on, you didn't like that awesome spin of Sandman being there when Uncle Ben was shot, that there were two guys involved?

That was something that did not need to be touched, that and the multiple villains are also a mistake.

But what really scarred me was "disco Pete" in the middle of it.

Agree on overpopulating the stories with villains, but the bigger issue for me was making Mary Jane the central romantic interest, and then casting Kirsten Dunst to play her. Nothing she did could convince me that she was a supermodel and one of the most beautiful women in the world. Dying her hair red wasn't enough.

The new movies pissed me off by making Gwen Stacy the romantic interest, but then coloring Emma Stone's hair blond and giving her that part. Am I the only person who thinks she would have been a perfect Mary Jane Watson?

Also, ‘cause someone’s gotta beat the DC drum, what’s the latest state of the Sandman movie rumors? Last I heard, there was serious talk of Joseph Gordon-Levitt producing, directing, and starring in the movie.

My reaction:

I think mostly it's all just talk at this time. Adapting Gaiman's stuff is problematic at best, most of the time, although "Mirrormask" was well done, and I really like "Neverwhere" even with the classic-Dr-Who-era sets.

Seriously, I think the last thing I read, even JGL himself said it was in very early stages and anything else at this point is just guessing.

As of August 21, 2014, JGL owns the screen rights to Sandman and is excited about the project. He and Gaiman are working with another writer on a script. I think Gaiman has enough cinematic vision to steer the material into a workable project. My biggest concern is that JGL will insist on starring in, rather than merely directing the film. I'm optimistic that an announcement will made some time next year.

When/where was Neverwhere made into a screen version? Was it a film, series, or what? I missed that one.

Penny Dreadful has awesome atmosphere almost a steampunk feel, but for some reason I couldn't get into it.

Sleepy Hollow is a guilty pleasure.

I activated Showtime just in time to catch the first episode of Penny Dreadful before it was pulled from the menu. It looked promising, but I won't be able to catch the rest of it until next year.

I like Sleepy Hollow also. It's not great TV, but I still have a good time watching it. I'm behind on this season, but I caught all of last year. What I like most is they managed to mix some concepts that have no relationship to one another and somehow making it all work.

 

[PennLady]

As of August 21, 2014, JGL owns the screen rights to Sandman and is excited about the project. He and Gaiman are working with another writer on a script. I think Gaiman has enough cinematic vision to steer the material into a workable project. My biggest concern is that JGL will insist on starring in, rather than merely directing the film. I'm optimistic that an announcement will made some time next year.

When/where was Neverwhere made into a screen version? Was it a film, series, or what? I missed that one.

JGL may be excited, but these things take a lot of time. Hopefully he'll have the drive to stay on target and maybe the clout to get it done. I read about so many projects that languish as writers, directors, etc., come and go. Plus I think Gaiman has his "American Gods" series that was supposed to be on HBO but now will be on Starz (or something). Plus the man does write.

Not sure about JGL as Dream, though... hmmm... nah. JGL doesn't look said enough. Smirks a lot, but not sad. Perhaps more importantly: who should play Death?

"Neverwhere" was done by the BBC as a TV production, eight or ten episodes. You can get it on DVD. The only drawback to my set is no subtitles, and man, those accents can be difficult.

I like Sleepy Hollow also. It's not great TV, but I still have a good time watching it. I'm behind on this season, but I caught all of last year. What I like most is they managed to mix some concepts that have no relationship to one another and somehow making it all work.

I think Sleepy Hollow is great fun. I'm finishing up True Blood (on demand) and maybe after that can catch up on Gotham, Flash, etc.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I was disappointed with Penny Dreadful for much the same reasons people get upset with the comic book movies/series - I get frustrated when they stray too far away from the original monster. Though, I guess that's a tough thing for me to say. Which Dracula? Bram Stoker's? Bela Lugosi? Christopher Lee?

Maybe it all boils down to fast zombies or NO fast zombies? Which is farthest from canon? (Personally, I find the relentless, overwhelming attack of slow, shambling zombies more terrifying.)

I've not read The Walking Dead books, but I'm sure enjoying the TV series. From what I've picked up from others, it's loosely following the books, so I guess that's good.

As for Wolverine - he's a great character, so I can see why he shows up so much. I'd love to see Project X as a movie. He just feels haunted by more demons than most superheroes and probably comes as close as The Punisher for being a hero and villain at the same time.

 

[lovecraft68]

I was disappointed with Penny Dreadful for much the same reasons people get upset with the comic book movies/series - I get frustrated when they stray too far away from the original monster. Though, I guess that's a tough thing for me to say. Which Dracula? Bram Stoker's? Bela Lugosi? Christopher Lee?

Maybe it all boils down to fast zombies or NO fast zombies? Which is farthest from canon? (Personally, I find the relentless, overwhelming attack of slow, shambling zombies more terrifying.)

I've not read The Walking Dead books, but I'm sure enjoying the TV series. From what I've picked up from others, it's loosely following the books, so I guess that's good.

As for Wolverine - he's a great character, so I can see why he shows up so much. I'd love to see Project X as a movie. He just feels haunted by more demons than most superheroes and probably comes as close as The Punisher for being a hero and villain at the same time.

The violence in the WD comic makes the show look like its for children, serious shit. Michona getting raped in the ass(implied, but very implied) and then what she does to him later on?

How about severing his arm, sealing the wound with a blow torch then nailing him to the floor by his dick?

Now, that is my kind of woman.

 

[StrangeLife]

How about severing his arm, sealing the wound with a blow torch then nailing him to the floor by his dick?

Are you sure you aren't confusing it with a Loving Wives story?

 

[lovecraft68]

Are you sure you aren't confusing it with a Loving Wives story?

No in LW they would have severed all four of the wives limbs, cauterized them and then gang raped her and then carried her around publicly and gang raped her again then put her in a freak show where the freaks would rape her and...

hundreds of guys would say yes that is great rape her again and cut her tits off too! all the while using tweezers to jack their tiny cocks off, then go back to licking their wife's assholes out after their boyfriend came in it because that is what the filth over there does. Threaten and revel in violence towards women then cower like the fucking dogs they are.

Meantime the story would be reported by fifty people and Laurel would say "well you know, its tricky....."

Now that......is a rant, part two.

 

[PennLady]

Maybe it all boils down to fast zombies or NO fast zombies? Which is farthest from canon? (Personally, I find the relentless, overwhelming attack of slow, shambling zombies more terrifying.)

I think b/c zombies have been so popular lately (I think I've read they have upswings during economic downturns), people have been switching it up a little just for variation. Hence you have the speedy zombies in "28 Days Later," although those weren't really zombies. And the zombies in the "World War Z" movie also moved at a good clip.

Or I read a William Gibson e-book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, and in that one, the zombies eventually learned. There's a site out there called Livingwiththedead.com, and the guy who keeps it (Josh Glass, I think?) runs a faux daily blog on what happens as society breaks down, the zombie apocalypse happens, and people try to survive. His zombies have some neat quirks, and some of those also appear to learn; he calls them "smarties."

For a softer take on zombies, I would recommend "Warm Bodies." It's a little silly but -- John Malkovich!

I would agree, though, that the zombies who move slowly but *always* move can be more terrifying. They're like those nightmares where you run as fast as you can but the bad thing is always behind you and never far enough behind.

I've not read The Walking Dead books, but I'm sure enjoying the TV series. From what I've picked up from others, it's loosely following the books, so I guess that's good.

I haven't read TWD books either, aside from a friend loaning me the first issue. I've read that they have followed the books on some big plot points, but are changing up a lot of other things. There are characters in the series that aren't in the books, and some in the books that aren't in the series, etc. Works for me.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I think b/c zombies have been so popular lately (I think I've read they have upswings during economic downturns),

Horror often reflects the fears of the day. Genetic mutations - atomic warfare fears. (Here's a good article that mentions the idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/14/movies/do-horror-films-filter-the-horrors-of-history.html)

This isn't my idea, but I agree with it, that the current fad of zombies reflects the relentless hammering we're currently taking from our always on/always available lifestyle. Constant emails, text messages, Facebook updates, etc., all zombies gnawing at us.

His zombies have some neat quirks, and some of those also appear to learn; he calls them "smarties."

The idea's been played with elsewhere, too. (Interest copyright side note: George Romero's films are always "of the Living Dead," while his partner from "Night of the Living Dead" retains the rights to "Living Dead." Link concerning details) I've seen learning zombies in Romero films, too.

For a softer take on zombies, I would recommend "Warm Bodies." It's a little silly but -- John Malkovich!

Is it wrong to call that one cute?

 

[Verdad]

Loki is the shit, certainly an intriguing character I have always enjoyed. But I don't think Marvel has matured enough to give a series to a villain.

Besides why spend time on Loki when that time could be spent on more.....Wolverine! have you heard he once had the infinity Gauntlet and created the entire Marvel universe?

You know you've had it with a character when you sit there and worte up quick scenarios where he dies.

In Civil war he resurrected himself from the few atoms that were left of him. I am not making that up.

Sorry, beating the my bitter against the modern marvel drum.

I’m not too hopeful either. The comic book series is a bit of a nod to the fans, but when it comes to a serious investment like a movie, I’m sure we can expect another twelve hours of Downey’s … spirited performance instead.



Refreshing to read so many who’ve disliked Nolan’s Batman, too. The number of times I’ve heard it lauded, I thought I was the only person in the world who thought it took itself far too seriously, in sharp and not at all flattering contrast to Burton’s wonderful sense of the absurd.

Which kind of reminds me of the Man of Steel. Do I even dare touch that one?

 

[Verdad]

I think mostly it's all just talk at this time. Adapting Gaiman's stuff is problematic at best, most of the time, although "Mirrormask" was well done, and I really like "Neverwhere" even with the classic-Dr-Who-era sets.

Seriously, I think the last thing I read, even JGL himself said it was in very early stages and anything else at this point is just guessing.

My suspicion that it might be serious this time relies partly on Gaiman’s return to writing Sandman after all these years. A prequel consisting of six issues was launched last year.

Maybe Gaiman just felt like telling another Sandman story, but the timing coinciding with the movie rumors made me think they’re probing the market, stirring interest in the character, etc. One can but hope, eh?

The title of the prequel is The Sandman: Overture. From the three issues that have come out so far, it’s too soon to tell if the story will deliver, but the art is gorgeous.

 

[Verdad]

As of August 21, 2014, JGL owns the screen rights to Sandman and is excited about the project. He and Gaiman are working with another writer on a script. I think Gaiman has enough cinematic vision to steer the material into a workable project. My biggest concern is that JGL will insist on starring in, rather than merely directing the film. I'm optimistic that an announcement will made some time next year.

That’s my main issue with it, too. I believe Sandman could be made into a good movie, and I’d even give JGL the benefit of a doubt as far as directing goes. Someone like Guillermo del Toro would seem ideal, but maybe that’s a bit predictable and he may not even be interested.

But JGL in the main role? Urgh, just, no, no, no. Especially when it’s obvious it needs to be none other than Benedict Cumberbatch.

On that last point, I think Gaiman actually agrees with me. One notable thing about the new comic book Sandman is that his appearance is somewhat different. Because it’s in the character’s nature to have a shifting appearance, there had always been subtle changes (like the period when he looked like Robert Smith of The Cure), but he’s noticeably different now and the face seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to Cumberbatch.

 

[StrangeLife]

Refreshing to read so many who’ve disliked Nolan’s Batman, too. The number of times I’ve heard it lauded, I thought I was the only person in the world who thought it took itself far too seriously, in sharp and not at all flattering contrast to Burton’s wonderful sense of the absurd.

I liked Burton's Batman for it's realism - not the absurd - and I think that is how most people feel. Remember, we only had Adam West to compare with when those movies came out. In that light Burton's movies were practically a study in realism. The two later Batman movies became even more absurd, with a batmobile shining with neon and villains so cheesy you could hardly believe that most of them were Hollywood A-listers, and those movies tanked horribly. So when they dialled down the realism, the viewers were definitely not happy.

It's clear that superhero-movies became successful after they started taking the material seriously, and it is equally clear that whenever they revert to camp, things slide back downhill fast (Batman 3 & 4 and Superman 3 & 4). If they were to put Burton in charge of a Batman movie today, I am quite sure he would flop it.

 

[Verdad]

I liked Burton's Batman for it's realism - not the absurd - and I think that is how most people feel. Remember, we only had Adam West to compare with when those movies came out. In that light Burton's movies were practically a study in realism. The two later Batman movies became even more absurd, with a batmobile shining with neon and villains so cheesy you could hardly believe that most of them were Hollywood A-listers, and those movies tanked horribly. So when they dialled down the realism, the viewers were definitely not happy.

It's clear that superhero-movies became successful after they started taking the material seriously, and it is equally clear that whenever they revert to camp, things slide back downhill fast (Batman 3 & 4 and Superman 3 & 4). If they were to put Burton in charge of a Batman movie today, I am quite sure he would flop it.

Ah, dunno. You do have a point, and I know it’s an, um, highly controversial issue, but there’s serious treatment and then there’s taking itself so seriously as to court pomposity and tedium. Nolan’s Batman falls on the wrong side of the line in my admittedly subjective view.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

That’s my main issue with it, too. I believe Sandman could be made into a good movie, and I’d even give JGL the benefit of a doubt as far as directing goes. Someone like Guillermo del Toro would seem ideal, but maybe that’s a bit predictable and he may not even be interested.

But JGL in the main role? Urgh, just, no, no, no. Especially when it’s obvious it needs to be none other than Benedict Cumberbatch.

On that last point, I think Gaiman actually agrees with me. One notable thing about the new comic book Sandman is that his appearance is somewhat different. Because it’s in the character’s nature to have a shifting appearance, there had always been subtle changes (like the period when he looked like Robert Smith of The Cure), but he’s noticeably different now and the face seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to Cumberbatch.

Cumberbatch would be ideal. I could also see Johnny Depp in the role. Maybe Josh Hartnett or even Jude Law. But not Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He doesn't brood. He's too earnest.

I liked Burton's Batman for it's realism - not the absurd - and I think that is how most people feel. Remember, we only had Adam West to compare with when those movies came out. In that light Burton's movies were practically a study in realism. The two later Batman movies became even more absurd, with a batmobile shining with neon and villains so cheesy you could hardly believe that most of them were Hollywood A-listers, and those movies tanked horribly. So when they dialled down the realism, the viewers were definitely not happy.

It's clear that superhero-movies became successful after they started taking the material seriously, and it is equally clear that whenever they revert to camp, things slide back downhill fast (Batman 3 & 4 and Superman 3 & 4). If they were to put Burton in charge of a Batman movie today, I am quite sure he would flop it.

Actually, Batman 3 did very well. Its gross worldwide box office exceeded Batman 2 by nearly 30%. Batman 4, however, killed the franchise for over a decade.

 

[StrangeLife]

Ah, dunno. You do have a point, and I know it’s an, um, highly controversial issue, but there’s serious treatment and then there’s taking itself so seriously as to court pomposity and tedium. Nolan’s Batman falls on the wrong side of the line in my admittedly subjective view.

Maybe I should add that I am a fan of Burtons vision, and I like the two first movies a lot.

I remember how back in the day I was appalled when I heard that Michael Keaton had been cast as the lead in the upcoming movie - I mean, friggin Beetlejuice as Batman! C'mon! But my fears were put to shame because he totally nailed the part. Apart from the somewhat lacking physique he was as good in the role as Bale... and his growl was actually better. Bale tends to overdo it sometimes.

Where I am going with this, is that Keaton played the part straight as an arrow. He didn't camp it or make it goofy - Keaton's Batman was every bit as serious as Bale's. The surrealism came from the villains. Not Batman... despite the fact that he was portrayed by one of the most talented comedians of the time.

I always found that kinda funny...

Actually, Batman 3 did very well. Its gross worldwide box office exceeded Batman 2 by nearly 30%. Batman 4, however, killed the franchise for over a decade.

But the apparent success of #3 was due to expectation generated by the two previous films - a bait'n switch basically. People went in the hope of getting more of what they were used to from Burton, and left the theatre disappointed. So it did help kill the franchise (which was dead to me the moment I laid eyes on the neon-barfmobile ).

http://www.fatmovieguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Batmobile-Val-Kilmer.jpg

 

[PennLady]

Cumberbatch would be ideal. I could also see Johnny Depp in the role. Maybe Josh Hartnett or even Jude Law. But not Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He doesn't brood. He's too earnest.

Johnny Depp wouldn't be a bad choice, and I like the idea of Cumberbatch. He can be cold and detached and befuddled, as Dream often is.

I'm loving the "Sandman Overture" comics... got the first three at one go when I went in search of an Elric graphic novel. Had to order that, but walked out with the Sandman comics.

Maybe I should add that I am a fan of Burtons vision, and I like the two first movies a lot.

I remember how back in the day I was appalled when I heard that Michael Keaton had been cast as the lead in the upcoming movie - I mean, friggin Beetlejuice as Batman! C'mon! But my fears were put to shame because he totally nailed the part. Apart from the somewhat lacking physique he was as good in the role as Bale... and his growl was actually better. Bale tends to overdo it sometimes.

Where I am going with this, is that Keaton played the part straight as an arrow. He didn't camp it or make it goofy - Keaton's Batman was every bit as serious as Bale's. The surrealism came from the villains. Not Batman... despite the fact that he was portrayed by one of the most talented comedians of the time.

I always found that kinda funny...

It's been a long time since I've seen Burton's "Batman" movies, but I liked them and I agree -- Keaton opting to play the character straight was a great move. I don't recall being upset at the idea of Keaton's casting, probably because it wasn't like I was a huge Batman fan or anything. I think I thought it was odd, but was willing to roll with it.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's been a long time since I've seen Burton's "Batman" movies, but I liked them and I agree -- Keaton opting to play the character straight was a great move. I don't recall being upset at the idea of Keaton's casting, probably because it wasn't like I was a huge Batman fan or anything. I think I thought it was odd, but was willing to roll with it.

The batmobile should have told me what Burton was going for even before I saw the movie. The prop design is pretty much always a reliable indicator of where they are taking the story.


The classic is an amalgamation of flashy lights, rocket launchers and gadgets. As if they simply attempted to put as much stuff on it as possible. It practically screams "camp"...

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/c9/26/1360006109_7937_Batmobile.jpg?itok=Fo4MfpIR


The Burton-model is dark, brutal and serious. There are no lights, no chrome and nothing that breaks the looming shadowy style. It's a sculpture as much as a car...

http://www.comicbookbrain.com/_imagery/_2009_01_26/batmobile-tim-burton.jpg


The Nolan-tumbler looks utilitarian and deadly like a modern military war-machine. It is not designed for looks but as an efficient tool for the task...

http://www.fbtb.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/prancinghorse.jpg



Ben Affleck's ride in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman looks like a mix between Burton and Nolan. It's more military-looking than the former but also more expressive in a dark and brutal way than the latter...

http://s3.postimg.org/b50e8gt1v/batcar.jpg



So the car tells me that I will probably like the movie

 

[Verdad]

Cumberbatch would be ideal. I could also see Johnny Depp in the role. Maybe Josh Hartnett or even Jude Law. But not Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He doesn't brood. He's too earnest.

Yep, entirely too wholesome and next door. I say we start a petition.



And how could I have missed this the first time?

Perhaps more importantly: who should play Death?

I’ve actually no idea whom I’d like to see in the role of Death! Have you any suggestions?

 

[Verdad]

Maybe I should add that I am a fan of Burtons vision, and I like the two first movies a lot.

I remember how back in the day I was appalled when I heard that Michael Keaton had been cast as the lead in the upcoming movie - I mean, friggin Beetlejuice as Batman! C'mon! But my fears were put to shame because he totally nailed the part. Apart from the somewhat lacking physique he was as good in the role as Bale... and his growl was actually better. Bale tends to overdo it sometimes.

Where I am going with this, is that Keaton played the part straight as an arrow. He didn't camp it or make it goofy - Keaton's Batman was every bit as serious as Bale's. The surrealism came from the villains. Not Batman... despite the fact that he was portrayed by one of the most talented comedians of the time.

I always found that kinda funny...






But the apparent success of #3 was due to expectation generated by the two previous films - a bait'n switch basically. People went in the hope of getting more of what they were used to from Burton, and left the theatre disappointed. So it did help kill the franchise (which was dead to me the moment I laid eyes on the neon-barfmobile ).

http://www.fatmovieguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Batmobile-Val-Kilmer.jpg

That makes it clearer indeed. I agree the role was played straight. The sense of wonder (and the sense of humor) were found in everything else, from the design of the city to Danny Elfman’s musical score.

Come to think of it, my dislike of Nolan’s take begins already with his decision to excise the wonder as completely as possible. To my mind, it didn’t result in darker, more brutal movies suited to these arguably darker and more brutal times, but in drabness and melodrama. After I’ve been told in one too many a way that Gotham is just like any other city and Batman’s issues require a real live shrink, I found myself ‘believing’ in the story less rather than more. I certainly found myself less enchanted and entertained by it.

Suspension of disbelief can be funny like that. Sometimes it does take a bit of camp, a bit of over-the-top-ness, a bit of ludicrous, even, to make a fictional world come that much more alive. Or so I’m apt to think, with my liking of the fantastic.

I love your presentation of Batmobile through the ages. The last one looks promising indeed. I’m not a huge Batman fan, so I’m not as upset about the casting of Ben Affleck as many have been, but neither am I keen on him. That vehicle looks like it might make up for much, though. One thing it doesn’t say is “drab”.

 

[PennLady]

I’ve actually no idea whom I’d like to see in the role of Death! Have you any suggestions?

I think of Mila Kunis, mostly because of her facial features but not necessarily acting ability. Not sure who else; I haven't really thought about it.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I’ve actually no idea whom I’d like to see in the role of Death! Have you any suggestions?

Mila Kunis, of course. Also, Jenna Coleman, Gemma Arterton, Alexis Bledel, Olivia Wilde, Michelle Trachtenberg, Amanda Seyfried, Rachel Bilson, Eva Green, Emily Blunt, Lucy Griffiths, LIly Collins, Rachel Hurd-Wood, to name a few.