Dwayne Johnson Confirmed As Doc Savage

[wcw43921]

The Article At Variety

 

Casting Johnson in the role should guarantee a generous measure of attention to the movie--he is, after all, this century's Schwarzenegger, in terms of charisma and box-office popularity.  And this movie will need that sort of attention, considering we're talking about a character few people will have heard of today unless they're serious pulp-novel fans.

 

Still, it is good to see a superhero movie that isn't based on a Marvel or DC character.  We could use some more of those as far as I'm concerned.

 

There it is for anyone who's interested.

[zslane]

Do we know if this is going to try and bring Doc into modern day? Or is it going to be a period piece like Raiders of the Lost Ark?

[Spence]

Do we know if this is going to try and bring Doc into modern day? Or is it going to be a period piece like Raiders of the Lost Ark?

 

Good question and not addressed in any of the articles I read. 

For myself, I hope it is a period piece.    Many of the exotic dangers in the stories would be nerf'd by modern tech.  Or just be plain stupid. 

Many of the super-science gadgets that Doc had are simply 50's tech in the 30's.  I don't think it would stand a chance of being interesting if they "modernized" it.

 

Edited because posting from my phone sucks....

Edited June 1, 2016 by Spence

[zslane]

I tend to agree with you. I just find it interesting that some classic heroes tend to remain an artifact of their original era (The Shadow, The Phantom, Doc Savage), while others get updated to remain contemporary (Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond).

[Lord Liaden]

Those "modernized" characters have been frequently or continuously published or adapted in high-profile media over the intervening decades. (Although Holmes' origin recast in the 21st Century is a recent incarnation.) The "period" ones have shown up in more obscure venues, and/or have languished for long spans of time.

 

No question Dwayne Johnson has the physical presence for Clark Savage Jr., but I remain to be convinced he can also project the sense of Doc's powerful intellect, which is every bit as important to the character.

[bubba smith]

you may have a point

.but let's give Mr. Johnson the benefit of the doubt

[Spence]

I remember seeing him in a couple shows before he went the full on "action hero" route, he did a good job in a serious role.  I fully understand why he is picking the roles he has been.  He can have fun and still take in a good paycheck.   I don't think the issue will be the Rock and other cast, I think it will be the director/producer.  

 

The Doc Savage stories are portrayed as serious crime dramas with fantastic villains.  If they go the usual Hollywood moron route and try to make it campy or "funny", they will kill the show dead.  Humor should feel natural and support the serious drama, not be the main theme. 

 

Just my 2 cents....

[zslane]

If it turns out to be good, it'll only be because the writer(s) were devoted fans of the original stories and the producers chose not to interfere creatively.

[wcw43921]

No question Dwayne Johnson has the physical presence for Clark Savage Jr., but I remain to be convinced he can also project the sense of Doc's powerful intellect, which is every bit as important to the character.

 

As I said on another message board, I do think he'd make a better scientist than Denise Richards did.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I can definitely see him in the role, although it will depend a ton on the writing.

[Lord Liaden]

As I said on another message board, I do think he'd make a better scientist than Denise Richards did.

 

Set the bar high, don't you.

[Lawnmower Boy]

As I said on another message board, I do think he'd make a better scientist than Denise Richards did.

 

Denise Richards, like, totally heard this, and, like, you are so dead ZOMG fer sure.

[wcw43921]

Denise Richards, like, totally heard this, and, like, you are so dead ZOMG fer sure.

 

Remind me to be concerned.

[SteelCold]

 

One can only hope.

[SteelCold]

Those "modernized" characters have been frequently or continuously published or adapted in high-profile media over the intervening decades. (Although Holmes' origin recast in the 21st Century is a recent incarnation.) The "period" ones have shown up in more obscure venues, and/or have languished for long spans of time.

 

No question Dwayne Johnson has the physical presence for Clark Savage Jr., but I remain to be convinced he can also project the sense of Doc's powerful intellect, which is every bit as important to the character.

That's What Doc's five followers are for. They do the thinking while he does the posing and flexing of his bronze biceps.

[Doc Shadow]

That's What Doc's five followers are for. They do the thinking while he does the posing and flexing of his bronze biceps.

 

No. Doc's five followers are for comic relief and being rescued by Doc. Even in their own fields, where they're supposed to be the best in the world, Doc was better than they were. Frankly this is one time that I'm actually hoping for major changes. And this is from a guy who hated the character changes in Star Trek 09 and Casino Royale.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I liked Doc being the best of the best.  He's only one guy, so he won't see everything or think of everything; even the finest minds on earth rely on in put from smart minds to work on specifics while he does the big picture thing.

 

He's Sherlock Holmes + Tarzan + I dunno Mister Fantastic.  Its absurd but it does make him unique and very interesting.

[zslane]

Well, it makes him a Mary Sue, for sure. Whether or not that will be regarded as "unique and very interesting" will vary from person to person, but I do note that Rey was criticized by many, whether fairly or unfairly, of being less compelling because she is a Mary Sue. Do you feel that taking place in the '30s is expected to make that more palatable?

[Spence]

Well, it makes him a Mary Sue, for sure. Whether or not that will be regarded as "unique and very interesting" will vary from person to person, but I do note that Rey was criticized by many, whether fairly or unfairly, of being less compelling because she is a Mary Sue. Do you feel that taking place in the '30s is expected to make that more palatable?

 

Mary Sue?  Not really, he is not a young kid magically saving the day through some unrealistic ability or knowledge.  

 

Most people with that view point haven't actually read the stories so they do not have a frame of reference.   Doc's origin was, IIRC, in an era where university graduates and scientists were rapidly expanding knowledge and contributing tangible advances that directly applied to the common person.  Many people went from oil lamps and coal to electricity and phones within a hand-span of years.   The story was that he was raised (again IIRC) by his father, a world renowned scientist who rigorously trained him in academic, physical and mental disciplines for decades before he went into the world.   In a time when average life expectancy was 60 years and the majority were considered adults, married with families by 17-19, it was really unusual to train well into your 30's.  

 

In the original novels everything he does is well within what Hero would refer to as Normal Maxima.  I read all 170+ books as a kid and I am pretty sure that the majority of the "mysterious threats" were explainable once you figured out what was happening. They did involve things that were super-science in the 30-40's, but are actually common place by the 60-70's.  

 

As has been noted, Superman basically took several ideas from Doc and then pumped up the abilities to true super-levels. 

 

Over the years I have seen real people performing the very feats written in the books.  Free climbing, x games, etc. 

 

The reason I believe it should stay "in period" is the nature of the threats.  

In 1930 a guided missile capable of tracking and shooting down a P-26 or P-1 fighter is a thing of super-science.  

In 2016 it is just ho hum. 

 

Read the source material.  The later Dynamite comics were OK.  But they were re-written stories in the 1990's or 2000's through the lenses of those times where they attempted to "connect" or "be more relevant".  Good stories, but not the same. 

 

In the end, will I get the movie I really want? Probably not.

But I hope I get a movie I can enjoy

[zslane]

The term Mary Sue is slightly more nuanced today (Wikiedia: "...The 'Mary Sue' is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting."), but I get your point. Like you, I too hope we get a movie we can enjoy despite Doc's Mary Sue-ish perfection.

[Tjack]

First they made Seth Rogan the Green Hornet and made Johnny Depp's Tonto the star of the Lone Ranger, now they're going to make Dwayne Johnson Doc Savage. Hollywood is trying to make me kill myself.

Liam Hemsworth should be Doc.

[Christopher R Taylor]

They took a giant runny crap all over Green Hornet and Lone Ranger.  That was some absolutely horrible vomit.  I could see them do something better with this.

 

Do you feel that taking place in the '30s is expected to make that more palatable?

 

 

The difference, I should think is obvious, is that Star Wars has three decades of established patterns and tropes that the new movie sort of spit on with this supergirl because, grrl power and lets fast forward to the 'good parts.'   Doc Savage by definition is this way from the beginning, as a core part of his character, the setting, and the story.  He's not parachuting in to suddenly break all the rules and patterns, he sets them.  And what challenges him then is what makes the story interesting.

 

"Mary Sue;" People throw that term around without any clear definition like "Troll" which went from deliberately provocative person to "guy that says something I don't like."

[zslane]

A Mary Sue is a character that can do practically anything, and usually better than anyone else. Realistic characterization is sacrificed at the altar of wish-fulfillment. Such a character is usually a proxy for the author but can also serve as a proxy for the reader.

 

I have no difficulty grasping the definition and seeing its applicabiilty to both Doc and Rey. Mind you, I'm not as critical of Mary Sue characterization as many folks are; if the adventures are fun and exciting and the protagonist's ability to solve nearly every problem on his/her own, virtually without fail, doesn't undercut the tension or drama, then I don't have much of a problem with it. But that's a mighty big "if"...

[bubba smith]

They took a giant runny crap all over Green Hornet and Lone Ranger.  That was some absolutely horrible vomit.  I could see them do something better with this.

 

 

we can only hope

[Lord Liaden]

If Doc Savage is a Mary Sue because he's so gifted and omni-competent, then Batman would have to be one, as well. If wish-fulfillment is a key criterion, Superman could be considered the ultimate Mary Sue.

 

The term gets thrown around so much that it's almost lost its relevance. In origin it has very strong negative connotations of poor character development and unrealistic capability unjustified by a character's background, which doesn't really fit any of those mentioned above.

 

Wikipedia summarizes the history, and disputing definitions, of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue