If they are going to be at all faithful to even the spirit of the comic, the actor is going to have to deliver lines as molasses-y as anything in Shakespeare. They really should have a classically trained actor, or at least someone with plenty of stage experience to pull that aspect of the part off.

Joaquin's a little too blunt force for me.

What do you mean by molasses-y? Like it is going to come out slow?

Isn't Phoenix considered one of the better 'character' actors out there?

What I meant was, a classically trained actor- especially someone who has performed a bunch of Shakespeare, knows how to make long sentences full of archaic, non everyday colloquial speech, sound perfectly naturally.

"By the all seeing eye of Agamotto...By the hoary hosts of Hogoth...By the shades of Seraphim do I so command...let the amulet of Agamotto bathe the creatures of darkenss in light!"

Stuff like that is going to be insufferable to sit through unless the actor can pull it off so that it rolls out of his mouth naturally and with fluidity, not to mention authority.
I can't quite picture Phoenix's deliveries having that quality. Not saying he is the ideal choice, but I can see an actor like Cumberbatch giving lines like that some grace and weight.

Yeah... I wouldn't expect them to include a lot of dialogue like that.

I think Phoenix is a good actor (was great in Her), but I don't really see him in this part.

If they ditch that dialogue, they are neutering a significant aspect to the character's MO. Without some kind of verbal accompaniment, anytime he casts a spell, it's just going to seem even more arbitrary.

Also, the whole character's raison d'etre is he is the doorway to a spiritual world full of things with Lovecraftian names that most humans have never heard of. You dispense with that and what is left? Constantine? Buffy? Is that what fans want to reduce this to to make it 'safe' and palatable to general audiences?

Harry Potter had verbal spell casts didn't it? Just sounded like Latin words though. I think Pheonix is a very capable actor, I don't see why he couldn't handle lines like that. Those lines you wrote reminded me of the Dr. Orpheus character from The Venture Bros. I loved that character, but they'll have to be careful not to veer into parody with lines like that.

Years back when Thor was in development I made the comment that they needed to approach it like DeLaurentis's Flash Gordon. Everybody took offense at that. We were neck deep in TDK being the savior and one true light in regards to comic book adaptations. NO ONE wanted to hear any reference made to Flash Gordon.
Except what I was trying to say was- it needed to be bold, COLORFUL, balls to the wall unique and entirely it's own thing without any regard for people screaming too cornball, too camp, etc.
Because the thing is- at their core- these properties ARE campy. They are meant to be fun and far removed from daily life.

And now there is something out that that is mining that same Flash Gordon vibe and it's getting rave reviews for just those qualities that I was trying to articulate.

You can't be timid and afraid of looking silly because this stuff is silly. Embrace it and march forward. Guardians did, and look how that turned out.

glad we're moving away from the dark night hangover, hated that fucking cycle. yeesh

Yeah, but when Thor got to Earth his character became a punch line. It's like 'thanks for putting up with the funny dialogue in Asgard, now let's make fun of it.' GOTG also had some tongue-in-cheek stuff with nobody knowing who Star Lord was and the line "this might be a bad idea" almost referencing the movie itself.

The question is if they can keep all of that Dr. Strange dialogue without using a straight man character pausing to say "what's up with this guy and his weird words?"

One of the rules of improv is you don't negate what your partner is saying.

In fantasy/supernatural fiction it's ok for one character to question what's going on, but you have to show that character eventually buying in to the premise. If you have characters continually questioning the validity of what is going on- despite seeing for themselves repeatedly- you are making it impossible for the audience to fully buy into the premise.

I saw this just recently with something- can't remember what- where late in the third act characters were still denying the validity of all the strange shit that was going down. Not cool and did not work to the films advantage to have characters in the film saying this is bullshit when you are trying to ratchet up investment and tension in the story's climax

Is there a character like that in Dr. Strange comics?

Not really. Or not normally. The most common presence around Strange was Wong. And he was a straight man, there's a joke there. There was the occasional humor but the comic was played pretty straight forward with its tone. Serious shit happening in the mystic worlds and Strange took care of shit. Talking about Wong... He's a character I'd be fine with not having in the film. I don't mind him in the comics cuz he's been around forever with Strange but I don't think we'd need him for a film.

Strange comics went in the odd and spiritual but were played straight. It's goofy to us cuz it is crazy shit happening.

Wong might be useful because he is an intimate who can serve expository function as in Strange explaining to the audience (via Wong) what the situation is, the ramifications, etc.

Other characters could fulfill that purpose too, but Wong would essentially be as if Strange were narrating in a voice over because the two characters are so close and familiar with each other. It can be shorthand exposition rather than exhaustively detailed exposition that needs to spell everything out, as would be the case with a man off the street bystander who becomes embroiled in the events.

Also, going back to the previous point, Wong is fully in on the supernatural goings on. He's going to take everything as natural and matter of fact so, as an audience surrogate, we can too. He will support the premise instead of constantly negating it.

Not saying he's absolutely necessary, just that I can see his story utility if they did use him.

Phoenix seems OK to me, I trust Marvel's casting and they've done a darn good job so far. Definitely like him more them Benedict.

I'm not really feeling Phoenix in this, either.

Viggo Mortensen, yeah. Maybe Adrien Brody. Aiden Gillen I could see rocking the character.

Cusack would have been my choice.

I've never been a fan of Cusack but wasn't he kind of popular in the 90s?

most popular in the 80s (Better Off Dead, One Crazy Summer, Hot Pursuit), then had a bit of a resurgence in the late 90s (Grosse Pointe Blank).

Ah. Yeah, I've no connection to him. In fact the only things I've seen him in are Hot Tub Time Machine and Being John Malkovich. I think that's it. Any trailers he's been in from the 2000s onward hasn't really attracted me to his work.

You've never seen Grosse Pointe Blank or High Fidelity? Get on that.

Definitely High Fidelity, at least. Or, more recently, 1408 or Identity if you're in a horror/thriller vein.

He was also very good in The Frozen Ground, co-starring our Lord and Savior Nic Cage.

No SDCC announcement for this at all? Uh oh.