hermes said:
Wait... Sackhoff is 36. Is that "too old" now?
By comparison, Downey is 51, Boseman is 39, Cheadle is 51, Johansson is 31, Hemsworth is 32, Mackie is 37 and Evans is 35. I think if we are going to worry about "they might die of old age before they can finish the franchise", there are a lot of people before in that conga line.
The age rule doesn't apply as readily to men in Hollywood. This is a pretty common statement from the actress community. I've seen at least half a dozen articles from big name actresses, being told they were "too old" to play a role, sometimes even roles they were biologically close to the real world characters age. Johansson herself said once that she's approaching the age in Hollywood where the only roles you get are "Mom", so she's milking this "Hot Sexy Action Star" role for as long as she can, and she's only 31 apparently.
Downey doesn't count, because he's specifically playing a character who is by design, middle aged. And again, the age rule doesn't apply evenly across the sexes. And Evans is 35, but he was 29-30 when he first got the Captain America role, which is still pretty young (young enough for a male lead in hollywood). He can easily be in his physical prime for a decades worth of films, even more, as evidenced by what we've seen so far.
As to the "they might die" rationale, that is just one of many I proposed. I think it's reasonable in the mindset of "We're going to have them be doing a very physical role for hopefully a decade or more, let's get em young so we can milk that physical prime as long as we can." Thus, you go for younger. Granted, the "so they don't die" is in my mind one of the latter thoughts that probably crossed their mind, and that it's likely motivated primarily by the "get em young to milk that physical prime longer" rationale.
But the fact is, actresses younger than Charlize and Katie have been told they are "too old" for roles that they would likely be just fine for, so I doubt we will see them simply based on their age, regardless of how stupid I think that reason is.
We're likely going to get an early 20's actress who looks a bit older than she is.
elvor0 said:
I dunno about that one, the guys in the marvel movies are all on the middling age side, Downy clocks in at 51. Sackhoff is only 36 and Theron doesn't even look 40. Chris Evens has been there for a while sure, but he's 35 now, 1 year less than Sackhoff and he still made the collective female audiences tingle in Civil War, which I think he would've done even if he'd just been cast.
Again, they don't apply the age rule evenly across the sexes. So while it's perfectly fine to have a middle aged man play a young and vibrant role, the trend in Hollywood seems to be that if you had a woman of the same age bracket as say Robert Downey Jr., she's not going to get the role of an action movie franchise lead. She's just not. She's going to get the role of the "Mom" of that action star. For example, Marrisa Tormei, being the Aunt May to the new Spiderman. I could easily see her playing some role of an action woman, but instead, they gave her the "Mom" role for the 19 year old kid playing Spidey. And while I'm 100% in favor of having her play a younger, hotter Aunt May (love me some MILFS, and love me some Marrisa Tormei specifically), even though she's likely in the same age bracket as Downey, she's just not going to get a role like that.
Now sure, there are exceptions to this, one offs like that Salma Hayek movie where she's a prostitute stuck in a reenactment of The Raid, and Hellen Mirren in the RED and RED 2 movies, but they are without a doubt, the exception that proves the rule.
It sucks that Hollywood thinks that way, but apparently they do.