MovieChat Forums > X-Men (2000) Discussion > Should Anna Paquin and James Marsden hav...

Should Anna Paquin and James Marsden have been bigger stars than they wound up becoming?

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (20491)
17 replies | jump to latest

To give you a better idea:
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-actors-actresses-who-were-supposed-to-be-big-movie-stars-but-never-really-lived-up-to-their-potential

Anna Paquin: Paquin started her career as a child actress, at the age of 11 she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, becoming the second-younger winner in that category in Oscar history. Paquin definitely have both the skill and the talent, during her teenage ages she earned numerous Young Artist nominations in Fly Away Home, The Member of the Wedding, and A Walk on the Moon. Paquin starred in film directed by Cameron Crowe’s Almost Famous, Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, and she gained further recognition for playing Rogue in the X-Men franchise (2000–2014). Strangely, she appeared to traded the movie industry for smaller-scale television acting, her performance as Sookie Stackhouse in True Blood is critically lauded, but that appears to be the only role she became known for. Her presence in the X-Men film got sidelined by Ellen Page in Last Stand, and later Days of Future Past.

James Marsden: Marsden is in a lot of commercially successful films, he played Cyclops in X-Men, he played the secondary supporting roles (basically female lead’s backup boyfriend) in both The Notebook and Superman Returns, his performance in Hairspray and Enchanted are highly praised. He also had gained further success with 27 Dresses with Katherine Heigl (when she was popular), the teen comedy Sex Drive, and Death at a Funeral. He should’ve became a bigger star in the 2010s, as he was at his prime, always wondered why he plays a lot of supporting roles instead of leading a film.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I don't think James Marsden has quite the right look to be a lead actor in most things. He was perfectly cast in X-Men, I thought, because he played a main character but not quite the lead. I think that was why he was good in 27 Dresses, actually, because he was playing someone who was very slightly the underdog.

I compare him with, say Michael Vartan, who has the kind of look where when he appears in a movie it's obvious that he's going to be the romantic target of some woman, but if you tried to make him an action hero, well, just, no. It wouldn't work. He's good as a sweet, sensitive type though.

Or, Viggo Mortensen, who was absolutely perfect as Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but when I saw him in some other things after that I thought, "huh?" So why was he so perfect as Aragorn? I think because we all met Aragorn first as Strider, who comes across as a bit dubious when we first meet him, but then as you get to know him, you understand that the dubious look is really about his many years as a ranger. Mortensen pulled off that vibe perfectly. Actually, when I saw him in that role, I thought, "Oh THAT'S what Aragorn looks like. I always wondered." He just personified the character so well.

I think James Marsden would be perfect in The Boys. They should build a character for him there :)

[–] TMC-4 (20491) 4 years ago

Somebody on Reddit said that the problem with James Marden was that he was an actor who was always difficult to cast. More specifically, he was somebody with "leading man looks" but "character actor's comedic timing". He's almost too cliched "good looking" if that makes sense. In other words, James wouldn't be the first actor that you would turn to for a grimy role because he looks like a prince out of a Disney animated movie.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/p88l8y/which_actoractress_seemed_to_have_it_all_but/h9pu8h8/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

[–] Cognoscente (2778) 4 years ago

It's ironic because he has kind of a Tom Cruise vibe about him. Tom being someone who was, at one time, also regarded as being too much of a pretty boy for a gritty role like an action movie protagonist.

[–] naDaht (1087) 3 years ago

I still don't take Cruise seriously as an action movie actor. He's compensating for something and boy does it show.

[–] Cognoscente (2778) 3 years ago

It could be a combination of Peter Pan syndrome, Napoleon syndrome and small penis insecurity.

[–] naDaht (1087) 3 years ago

Even I who isn't anywhere near being a licensed psychiatrist or something close, can see he's a walking, talking neurosis.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15308) 3 years ago

I still don't take Cruise seriously as an action movie actor. He's compensating for something and boy does it show.

Ditto. Never have. Whenever I see him in a supposed 'action' role he always seems like a boy surrounded by men.

[–] naDaht (1087) 3 years ago

Granted, he's great in Day after Tomorrow and Minority Report. Well, MR is mostly Tom doing what he does best, running. But I don't hate him in it.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I never really thought about his comedy instincts but I think you are right about that. But, lots of actors don't have good comedic timing, so you would think they could build roles for him around that? I like him, I would love to see him in more stuff.

[–] Cognoscente (2778) 2 years ago

He demonstrated his comedy skills in Small Apartments.

[–] TMC-4 (20491) 3 years ago

Speaking of Michael Vartan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9hMJE2U068

https://www.looper.com/610799/why-hollywood-stopped-casting-michael-vartan/

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

Paquin, as the quote you posted points out, did achieve quite a bit of success with the reasonably-popular True Blood.

Marsden, I think, was too generic. He was standard-issue leading man, and he just played those blandoid dudes: Cyclops or Lois Lane's husband from Superman Returns. He was the "straight-laced, good guy, safe choice" character. If he wanted/wants more fame, he should play a serial killer. Of course, fame is luck, too; right project, right time.

[–] TMC-4 (20491) 3 years ago

The thing with Anna Paquin though, is that she didn't really become a "star" (i.e. someone whose name is on the marquee or whose name was billed above the movie's title and is predominately featured in the marketing), but really a working actress who is good.

https://lebeauleblog.com/2021/07/24/july-24-happy-birthday-anna-paquin/

After resuming her schooling for a few years, Paquin returned to acting in 1996. She starred in the drama Fly Away Home, and played the young Jane in Franco Zeffirelli’s Jane Eyre. She went on to roles in films like She’s All That and Almost Famous (as one of the Band Aids). In 2000, she also made her first appearance as Rogue in X-Men.

During the 21st Century, Paquin has returned to the X-Men franchise several times, but otherwise she has largely stayed away from big-budget productions. She has preferred indie-style films; a few examples would be Buffalo Soldiers, Blue State, Margaret, and Tell It to the Bees.

In the early 2000s, Paquin did a lot of stage work. She appeared in a number of off-Broadway productions, of plays such as Rebecca Gilman’s The Glory of Living and Neil LaBute’s The Distance From Here. She made her West End debut in 2002, in Kenneth Lonergan’s This Is Our Youth.

Until the mid-2000s, Paquin did very little television work. In 2007, she was an Emmy nominee as Elaine Goodale in the HBO movie Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. A year later, she began starring as Sookie Stackhouse on True Blood, HBO’s adaptation of Charlaine Harris’s Southern Vampire novels. Paquin won a Golden Globe in 2009 for Best Actress in a Drama Series.

Paquin has continued to do a lot of TV work since True Blood ended. She starred on the Canadian crime drama Bellevue, and on the final season of Showtime’s The Affair. Currently, she stars on the British series Flack, which airs on Amazon in the US.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 3 years ago

Well, you're answering your original question. "Should" anybody become a star? It depends on their roles and choices. So, the answer here (with Paquin) seems to be, "No," because she preferred indie films and stage work. Good for her, by the way. It's probably way more personally fulfilling than an empty blockbuster.

[–] naDaht (1087) 3 years ago

She might have won an Oscar, but I think she's pretty bland as an actress.

[–] TMC-4 (20491) 3 years ago

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/21412135-anna-paquin-is-a-pretty-lousy-actress-isn-t-she-

The issue with Paquin is like a lot of other actors whose natural accents (or languages) are not American (or English). It's not that Paquin can't act, it's that she struggles (and fails) so badly with an American accent that it takes over the performance. The same thing happens with Isabella Rossellini, and especially Penelope Cruz, who is a decent actress in her native language, but cannot act for shit when she's asked to speak English.

by Anonymous reply 27 June 16, 2018 9:23 PM

https://www.quora.com/Which-child-actor-did-not-live-up-to-his-her-potential/answer/John-Gaunce

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheAffair/comments/klipcj/anna_paquins_acting/

[–] LanceDance (1394) 3 years ago

Eh, both of them have enjoyed modest success.

I DO think that Cyclops should’ve been the main character in X-Men, not Wolverine. He’s the leader of the team and has a similar boy-scout personality to Superman and Captain America, both of which proved popular main characters with audiences.
Whether that would’ve boosted Marsden’s career, I don’t know. I think he’s a handsome and good-enough actor, not bad, not great.