Jump to content

Martin Freeman in "Captain America: Civil War"


Recommended Posts

I only do that because I know all the Avengers-Films have post credit scenes....:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the background on the character Freeman is playing, from the man who thought up Everett K. Ross for the Black Panther comics:
 

So, how do we do a book about a black king of a black nation who comes to a black neighborhood and not have it be a "black" book? Moreover, how to we deal with reader apathy and resistance to the return of one of Marvel's least appreciated and dullest characters? Do we turn Panther into WolverPanther? Do we kill him off and replace him with some kid with a crab on his face? Cut off his hand and replace it with a hook?

The answer came to me while watching the brilliant Matthew Perry perform a scene in the NBC hit sitcom Friends. "Gum would be perfection," a line only Friends fans would know, made me howl with laughter for days. Perry's character, an investment banker named Chandler Bing, was actually quite competent at his job. Respected and successful, Bing nevertheless was the horrified fish out of water when caught up in the machinery of his friends' complex personal lives. This was a role Perry freely adapted for the largely ignored but very funny film Fools Rush In, where he plays a brilliant corporate developer who is nonetheless The White Boob around Salma Hayek's Latino community.

I asked Joe and Jimmy, "What if we put that guy- Chandler Bing-into the series? He could be the motormouth, he could give voice to the skeptical readers and validate their doubts and fears about the series. And, best of all, he could amplify the Panther's mystery and overall enigma as his monologues would be, at best, a guess about Panther's whereabouts and motives."

The guys loved the idea, and we started hammering away at the details. The character's name was, literally, Chandler for the first couple of weeks, until I settled on a Alex P. Keaton vibe in Everett K. Ross. Most fans assumed him to be a one-off of Michael J. Fox, and Fox could certainly bring him to life, but I was writing Chandler, not Alex. I had Ross appear in KA-ZAR #17 as a warm-up of sorts, a run-through with the quick-witted, sardonic half-pint, who effortlessly got Ka-Zar off of an attempted murder charge.

With Ross in place, the book began to take shape. Ross became the key to making the book work. He was the voice of the average Marvel reader....


... aaaand -- enter Martin Freeman!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's finally some news on Funny Cow:  The UK rights have been bought, and production is expected to begin this October in Belfast.  Yay!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My Mother's Day present from my son (and by default birthday gift as well since I never got him out with someone to get me one back in March) was this movie.  Now I have to wait about 5 months for Dr. Strange and then wait for the next MCU movie containing either Benedict or Martin & there is a MCU Fan who came up with the ultimate Infinity Wars cast list that would have Benedict, Martin & Hiddleston in the same movie.   That would be brilliant if it turned out to be true.  We will have to wait and see.   How come that sounds like my life?  That's right, I'm a Sherlock fan.  That's how our lives are, hurry up to wait and see. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Here's the background on the character Freeman is playing, from the man who thought up Everett K. Ross for the Black Panther comics:

 

So, how do we do a book about a black king of a black nation who comes to a black neighborhood and not have it be a "black" book? Moreover, how to we deal with reader apathy and resistance to the return of one of Marvel's least appreciated and dullest characters? Do we turn Panther into WolverPanther? Do we kill him off and replace him with some kid with a crab on his face? Cut off his hand and replace it with a hook?

 

The answer came to me while watching the brilliant Matthew Perry perform a scene in the NBC hit sitcom Friends. "Gum would be perfection," a line only Friends fans would know, made me howl with laughter for days. Perry's character, an investment banker named Chandler Bing, was actually quite competent at his job. Respected and successful, Bing nevertheless was the horrified fish out of water when caught up in the machinery of his friends' complex personal lives. This was a role Perry freely adapted for the largely ignored but very funny film Fools Rush In, where he plays a brilliant corporate developer who is nonetheless The White Boob around Salma Hayek's Latino community.

 

I asked Joe and Jimmy, "What if we put that guy- Chandler Bing-into the series? He could be the motormouth, he could give voice to the skeptical readers and validate their doubts and fears about the series. And, best of all, he could amplify the Panther's mystery and overall enigma as his monologues would be, at best, a guess about Panther's whereabouts and motives."

 

The guys loved the idea, and we started hammering away at the details. The character's name was, literally, Chandler for the first couple of weeks, until I settled on a Alex P. Keaton vibe in Everett K. Ross. Most fans assumed him to be a one-off of Michael J. Fox, and Fox could certainly bring him to life, but I was writing Chandler, not Alex. I had Ross appear in KA-ZAR #17 as a warm-up of sorts, a run-through with the quick-witted, sardonic half-pint, who effortlessly got Ka-Zar off of an attempted murder charge.

 

With Ross in place, the book began to take shape. Ross became the key to making the book work. He was the voice of the average Marvel reader....

... aaaand -- enter Martin Freeman!

 

I read something similar to this when I was doing some background reading on Civil War.  When we left the theater, my husband said, "Now, which one was Martin Freeman again?" And I said, "You know the every-man character who somehow manages to be completely identifiable to you while still being totally badass?  That was MF.  In every single movie or show.  Yet totally differently in every one of them."   :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we left the theater, my husband said, "Now, which one was Martin Freeman again?" And I said, "You know the every-man character who somehow manages to be completely identifiable to you while still being totally badass? That was MF. In every single movie or show. Yet totally differently in every one of them." :D

Exactly -- though I hesitate to say so, because I've heard that Freeman bristles at the Everyman label, even though he himself has described several of his characters as basically the audience's representative. I suspect that his objection is not so much to the term as to his suspicion that people use it to mean either A] his character is boring or (more likely, I think) B] he always plays the same character. (Some people may indeed mean one or the other, but the world needs all kinds. ;) )

 

I believe the truth to be closer to this: No matter what the character is like, Freeman crawls inside him (or in one memorable instance, her) and becomes him. When we look into Freeman's eyes, we see into the character's soul. Even if the character is a real stinker, we can somewhat understand why, and -- to one extent or another -- we care what happens to him. I think this is wonderful, because if a show doesn't have at least one character that I give half a damn about, I simply do not watch it. Martin Freeman hasn't let me down yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When we left the theater, my husband said, "Now, which one was Martin Freeman again?" And I said, "You know the every-man character who somehow manages to be completely identifiable to you while still being totally badass? That was MF. In every single movie or show. Yet totally differently in every one of them." :D

Exactly -- though I hesitate to say so, because I've heard that Freeman bristles at the Everyman label, even though he himself has described several of his characters as basically the audience's representative. I suspect that his objection is not so much to the term as to his suspicion that people use it to mean either A] his character is boring or (more likely, I think) B] he always plays the same character. (Some people may indeed mean one or the other, but the world needs all kinds. ;) )

 

I believe the truth to be closer to this: No matter what the character is like, Freeman crawls inside him (or in one memorable instance, her) and becomes him. When we look into Freeman's eyes, we see into the character's soul. Even if the character is a real stinker, we can somewhat understand why, and -- to one extent or another -- we care what happens to him. I think this is wonderful, because if a show doesn't have at least one character that I give half a damn about, I simply do not watch it. Martin Freeman hasn't let me down yet.

 

 

Totally agree, and, while I understand his objection to the "everyman" label, I think I use it in this case as a compliment, as you are doing.  In every part in which I've seen him, Freeman has the ability to validate my reactions to the happenings on screen and make me feel like I'm a part of the action because I can identify so readily with his portrayal.  That requires him to play a different, but still highly accessible, character in every one of his movies or shows.

 

Take The Office.  MF's Tim was the definite highlight for me in that his portrayal allowed me to experience the absurdity of some of the other characters, particularly Gareth, in a show in which arguably every character was either an "everyman" or a caricature of one.  He played Tim with a subtlety that made me want to watch him, and, by extension, sort of embody that entire experience.

 

To bring us back to the forums, I think the most stand-out thing about MF's John Watson is that he literally is the Boswell for the audience in a very modern way.  Most Watsons don't engage the audience quite so readily because they are so busy engaging with the Holmes character.  MF is able to simultaneously portray a character that has a real relationship with Sherlock while conveying to the audience that it's fine for us to find some of Sherlock's behavior odd, because John does too.  

 

Being that audience conduit while still being a character is an enormously difficult thing to do, and sometimes I almost wonder if it is more difficult than some of the other characters that inhabit the screen with him.  I mean, I would think it would be one thing to play a superhero or Sherlock Holmes or even some of the losers in The Office, but its quite another to be able to inhabit those worlds while inviting the viewer into them.  To me, MF deserves all the props in the world for that.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring us back to the forums, I think the most stand-out thing about MF's John Watson is that he literally is the Boswell for the audience in a very modern way.  Most Watsons don't engage the audience quite so readily because they are so busy engaging with the Holmes character.  MF is able to simultaneously portray a character that has a real relationship with Sherlock while conveying to the audience that it's fine for us to find some of Sherlock's behavior odd, because John does too.  

 

Not only that, but it helps the audience accept Sherlock in spite of (or maybe even because of?) his oddities. Without John staunchly on his side, I think a lot of people would find Sherlock somewhat less endearing. But "average guy" John takes him in his stride, showing us how to do it too.

 

Or something like that. That's actually a bit pop psychological, now that I think about it. :smile: Don't want to give anyone the idea that I actually know what I'm talking about....

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Wikipedia's write-up on the Everyman character type. They give 18 examples from fiction (including movies and television). One is Jim Halpert, the Tim Canterbury clone from the American Office, and another is Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide. So Martin Freeman could just about have his picture in the dictionary under "Everyman" -- simply because he's so damn good at it.

 

I've heard him say that he'd like to play Hitler, not as the usual simple monster, but rather as a complex character who gradually convinces himself of a horribly warped worldview -- in a sense portraying Hitler as an Everyman, with the moral of the story being, if a basically normal human being could become like that, then Hitler wasn't just a fluke, it could happen again. I'd love to see him do that character.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I think that would creep me out. I guess that would be the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I think that would creep me out. I guess that would be the point.

 

I might be creeped out as well, but at the same time I'd find it interesting.  We would get to see Martin paint at some point and portray a WWI soldier wounded in action if the history went back far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would get to see Martin paint at some point and portray a WWI soldier wounded in action if the history went back far enough.

If you want to see him portray a character who paints, you could check out Nightwatching, wherein he plays Rembrandt. His performance is terrific (as usual), but I find the movie just a little too "arty" (in the other sense of the word) for my taste.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched the trailer, it looks awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, will need to check that out later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make sure Johnspec isn't around when I look at it before he even gets a chance to see it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always stick around, ever since Young Sherlock Holmes. :smile:

 

Okay, so I lied ... I forgot to stick around (until the end of the credits). In my own defence, I was with people who prefer to jump up and leave the moment the movie ends. I managed to hold them up long enough to see the (pre-credits) epilog, but then we left.

 

So ... what did I miss? *rubs hands together in anticipation*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember what the last scene was that was post-credit.  Need to watch the movie again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember what the last scene was that was post-credit.  Need to watch the movie again.

 

It was a short scene where Spiderman shows off his new gadget he got from Tony Stark. 

 

And speaking for Martin, I met the guy in New Zealand on the red carpet premiere in Wellington for The Hobbit. The guy was funny as heck and hung out with me for a while before heading back to the hotel after the screening. Truly a down to earth likeable guy

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't remember what the last scene was that was post-credit. Need to watch the movie again.

It was a short scene where Spiderman shows off his new gadget he got from Tony Stark.

 

 

So, nothing critical. (Translate "critical" as: Dr. Strange related. :D )

 

Thanks, policecop! I don't think we've met, welcome to the forum! :welcome:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't remember what the last scene was that was post-credit. Need to watch the movie again.

It was a short scene where Spiderman shows off his new gadget he got from Tony Stark.

 

 

So, nothing critical. (Translate "critical" as: Dr. Strange related. :D )

 

Thanks, policecop! I don't think we've met, welcome to the forum! :welcome:

 

Nothing critical indeed, felt like they just needed to put something in there to tell us all they are doing yet another Spiderman reboot :-p 

 

Thank you for wishing me welcome to the forum, nice to meet you as well, Arcadia!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Looks like we forgot about this thread (I think most of the more recent Civil War posts are in the Martin Freeman News thread).

 

Anyhow, there's now a gag reel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. I think the guy's comeback is what was funny.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just watched the film. I admit I was a bit disappointed, I wished Martin could have more scenes.....but, as always, he was great. Also the character was perfect for him.

 

About the film, I liked it, even if I really can't understand how Captain America's shield could be still intact after being put on a bomb, launched around, pushed against walls and so on. So interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 23 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.