LATEST NEWS

Where Are All the Stars - Tom Hiddleston Also Joins Thor?

by
May 18, 2009
Source: Deadline Hollywood

Tom Hiddleston

I'm starting to get a bit worried. Not that Thor won't have some good performances - I actually expect better performances out of no name actors - but that the cast is filling up with a bunch of unknowns. A few days ago, it was confirmed that Chris Hemsworth, who is most well known for playing George Kirk in Star Trek, had been cast as Thor. Now Nikki Finke is reporting that British actor Tom Hiddleston has been cast as Loki, the villain in the film and Thor's half-brother nemesis. It seems like it could it might be good casting (I've never seen Hemsworth in anything), but how are they going to sell this as a summer movie?

Hiddleston is another big unknown. He played Winston Churchill's son in HBO's The Gathering Storm and has appeared on stage in plays in London. I hate to be a marketing bitch, but I'm pulling for Thor, I want it to be an awesome movie and a huge hit for Marvel, but with two unknowns in the two lead roles, that can't be possible. Josh Hartnett was once rumored for the role of Loki, but obviously that didn't happen. So will they cast some big actors in other roles? Is Natalie Portman still involved as the love interest? And who could they cast as Thor's father Odin? Maybe the answers to these questions will settle my early fears.

Find more posts: Casting, Opinions

Discover more around the web:

Reader Feedback - 35 Comments

1

Looks a little bit like Sam Rockwell.

Corey on May 18, 2009

2

Oh wow... haven't been on in a few days and seeing this is rather depressing. I was pulling for Skarsgard and Hartnett... Hemsworth won't fit in my mind. Guess we will just have to wait and see but at this point its not looking too good. I'm not a big fan of unknowns. Sure I've been surprised before but more often than not most people agree that someone they know is a better fit before and after seeing the movie. I hope for the best but am prepared for the worst.

Erika on May 18, 2009

3

I saw Tom Hiddleston in the recent episodes of Wallander, which actually starred Kenneth Branagh. Connection? Maybe. But he was rather good there, so I've got faith in him to pull this through. I'd be interested in seeing this movie when it comes out - if it's marketed well, I don't think it'll matter if all the actors are unknowns or not.

Emma on May 18, 2009

4

I'd like to agree with you Emma on if it's marketed well it won't matter, but the (unfortunate) truth of the matter is that in America, star power is the biggest key to success. It really is the driving force. Maybe not for me or you or a single person who reads this site, but for a majority of the people who go see a film in theaters, it is the most important factor.

Alex Billington on May 18, 2009

5

I really hope Natalie Portman is in it, shes great, in every way.

Richard on May 18, 2009

6

Also Alex 300 had zero name actors and was rated r and based on a GN no one really heard of and it made 456 Million on a 60 million dollar budget and as epic a scale Asgard can be on screen it could be marketed well i am more worried about how they will make Loki and Thor look they are pretty ridiculous looking in the comics and i think Thor is more know then people think i have never read a Thor comic and i know of him

nelson on May 18, 2009

7

Star power in film of any kind, is only good & worthwhile with good directing, stellar script & dialogue and good acting from the quote "star". I'll trust good casting over star power any day myself in film. Brandon Routh was a good Superman but a terrible Clark Kent in a badly written major studio summer movie. But I liked his approach as an actor to a godlike figure like the Man of Steel. I believe Kenneth has done great work in all his films (minus one in the old/fantasy west). I'll trust his instinct with the Odinson project.

Lazarus on May 18, 2009

8

Star power isn't everything, and when you have a powerful character like Thor, you just have to show a lot of cool scenes and some good acting and they will come. I

Ajax on May 18, 2009

9

alex - chris hemsworth was in star trek. he played george kirk, the father of james kirk at the very beginning of the film. he did a good job in the short time he was on screen. about the casting, i'm fine with the decisions. i have like the approach marvel is taking with their films. just wait till footage comes out. have faith true believers!

andrew on May 18, 2009

10

Aren't people tired of seeing the same actors over and over again? This is probably best for the budget. I would see a film with no names if it looks good over a film with all stars that looks terrible.

Stacey on May 18, 2009

11

Relax everyone. Thor was never going to make the $300+ box office that Spider-man or Iron Man did. Marvel will be happy with something in the $200M range domestic (give or take 10 million or so). Unlike a Fox superhero movie, the company doesn't have to make all its money off the movie - as the movie will drive Thor Merchandise and comics. We should be happy that Marvel doesn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator like Fox does with the crap it produces from Marvel characters. Marvel can concentrate on making thoughtful character driven movies with strong scripts, strong actors and directors and enough action to make fanboys and the casual fan take notice. Thor also helps lead into an Iron Man movie, where I'm guessing RDJ will be the big ticket item. Don't be surprised if Captain America isn't a relative unknown as well, as no studio can afford paying 3 actors $15 - 20M for a star studded Avengers movie. I too hope we get some higher profile talent for Odin, Sif, Donald Blake, Jane Foster, the warriors 3 or whomever is in this movie (I have no idea who will be) - b/c I acknowledge famous faces put buts in seats. Trust me - a well made movie with great special effects and great word of mouth (remember the world the week before and after iron-man came out) will do wonders and get a Thor movie where we and Marvel want it to be.

Matt on May 18, 2009

12

star power is not needed in hollywood. the notion that star power is needed in hollywood is very wrong. sure it helps, but its not needed. just look at Star Trek last week, the main characters were unknowns, and it made $76 Million. Tobey Maguire was not a star when Spiderman came out. and if history has anything to say, it would say you don't need star power in hollywood. look at Star Wars, The Godfather, Lord of the Rings, etc.

samir on May 18, 2009

13

Oh please, Alex. Once you see some footage and Marvel pushes this to kingdom come which they have the money to do so, you'll be saying how big of a movie this will be. They can always get a bigger supporting cast and not only that but going with unknowns is the right thing to do for this. In Branagh one should trust.

Bahumbug on May 18, 2009

14

"It seems like it could it might be good casting" Huh?

adam frazier on May 18, 2009

15

I agree with #10. The biggest star in Spiderman was Willem Defoe. Even Christian Bale as Batman was a bit of a gamble at the time that they made that decision. Marketing is the biggest key to success in America and they are going to market the crap out of Thor.

Kevin on May 18, 2009

16

Is there any casting news you don't complain about?

AG on May 18, 2009

17

"Where Are All the Stars" Did you ask this question when they were casting Watchmen?

Tom on May 18, 2009

18

And don't forget Daniel Craig as James Bond...he wasn't that big of a star either....

Cmurder on May 18, 2009

19

The thing I like about Thor is the fact that it isn't going to fall into the random generic action film category some Marvel films can fall into (Punisher, Hulk) as it features the world of Asgard, which is a Lord of the Rings/medieval/mythological style setting that isn't really used too often in film. I know what I said is kind of confusing but hopefully it makes some sense. So with that being said, I can see that aspect becoming more of a hook to fans than star power. If the whole character and world is more mysterious and rare in Hollywood it might help the film a lot.

Dean on May 18, 2009

20

Eff that. We need new stars anyway. Ours are overrated.

Fuelbot on May 19, 2009

21

Iron Man had no stars. For a 150 million movie. Transformers had no stars. For a 150 million movie. Spiderman 1 had no stars. For a 150 million movie. 300 had no stars period. etc

Darunia on May 19, 2009

22

Darunia, I don't want to have to argue this but uh... Iron Man had RDJ, he was DEFINITELY a star beforehand. And Shia had been in a few BIG leading roles before Transformers (Holes, for example) and it also had a HUGE cast of other BIG actors. Tobey Maguire was also a very well known actor with a few leads. Same with 300... Your argument here is bullshit man, do some research before you make a claim.

Alex Billington on May 19, 2009

23

#22 All those people you are talking about made some good flicks but were largely unknown to the average Summer-movie joe before they made the actual blockbuster. You as a film buff might have known them but the 300+millions or whatever those films made came from people who had no knowledge of the main actors.

Shige on May 19, 2009

24

Casting relative unknowns is a plus. Your crowes or dicaprios and pitts come with tons of baggage that muddles up the character they should be playing. Troy is an obvious example of this. Bana and Pitt are both great actors. Wolfgang Petersen has done some great movies... BUT.. Pitt and Bana just couldnt be convincing... imo, its because of all the baggage the actors have.. whether they are actually bringing it, or we are subconsciously putting it on them based on other stuff we have seen them in... It takes a different feel to get us to care about these mythical, epic type characters, and its something that i think you cant define, but it isnt done well by established actors.

9mm on May 19, 2009

25

Big name actors have been making big movies that were shit for a long time. Glad to see an alternative method to film making. Just cause your a big actor, doesn't make you good for example....ben affleck/ryan reynolds/shia labeouf...i don't have time to type out the hole list. Who cares how they're going to sell it as a summer movie? What the hell is that? That's a pretty absurd comment to make about film. It's shouldn't be about selling it, it should be about the quality.

angryKid on May 19, 2009

26

Samir has the right of it. You don't need big stars to have a successful film. LOTR, SW, and Godfather are the best examples. Shige is also right that while the actors mentioned by Alex were known by film buffs, the average filmgoer would not have known their names (although they may have recognized their faces). I'm perfectly fine with this casting. I trust Branagh to make something worthwhile.

elessar on May 19, 2009

27

I think thios will be batman begins dry and Hulk boring. Instead of x-men/iron man great.

Ryderup on May 19, 2009

28

casting an unknown is how a star is made brah!

hope springs eternal on May 19, 2009

29

the original star wars inly had alec guiness

manxome on May 19, 2009

30

I agree with #23. Even Star Trek is another example. Apart from Zachary Quinto and his Hereos following, how many bankable stars did that movie have? None.

adam on May 19, 2009

31

I'm also always surprised at how aggressive and defensive Alex is to his readers.

adam on May 19, 2009

32

I agree with what most of you are saying about star power not being important. The casting we've heard here doesn't turn me off at all. I don't think, however, that Star Trek is a good example of how casting a big name isn't important. Star Trek is an established franchise that people have known at least something about for years. This is not a reboot of Thor, it's brand new, so the equation of star power and box office earnings between the two can't really be made.

Pete on May 19, 2009

33

#17: "Did you ask this question when they were casting Watchmen?" That's totally right. Alex was too busy fawning like a horny schoolgirl over Watchmen before it came out. Teasers and trailers turned him into a raging Watchmen fanboy, I suspect something similar might happen with Thor. And Alex will be eating his words like he so often has to.

Johnny on May 19, 2009

34

Bale wasn't huge before Dark Knight let alone Begins (though they had Caine and Freeman)

Silver on May 19, 2009

35

sorry 15 didn't see your comment lotr and star trek had huge followings before hand Thor has nothing. Pre-Iron Man Iron Man was more recognizable than Thor. Thor (pretty much)=WTF?? the god? its important to be able to sell a movie because if you do you can take it deeper and make it better in the sequel (though that almost never happens). you know, that's how you get your Dark Knight, Spidey 2, X2 etc...

Silver on May 19, 2009

Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.

FEATURED POSTS

POPULAR COMMENTS

LAST YEAR'S TOP 10

Alex's Top 10 - 2017
1. Call Me By Your...
2. War for Apes
3. Shape of Water
4. Florida Project
5. Dunkirk
6. Jane
7. Foxtrot
8. Faces, Places
9. Never Really Here
10. Thelma
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10 - 2017
1. mother!
2. Lady Bird
3. A Ghost Story
4. The Big Sick
5. Dunkirk
6. Get Out
7. Killing Sacred Deer
8. John Wick 2
9. War for Apes
10. The Beguiled
Click Here for Thoughts

FOLLOW US HERE

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly

FS.NET ON FACEBOOK