MovieChat Forums > Standoff (2016) Discussion > The roles should have been switched

The roles should have been switched

posted 8 years ago by pmalt
6 replies | jump to latest

I think the movie would have worked better with Thomas Jane as the villain and Laurence Fishburne as the hero. They could have dispensed with the very contrived death of the child from hitting his head on a rock int he backyars (?) and just had him be a disillusioned Afghanistan vet who drank too much from PTSD and drank himself out of his family. That way rescuing the little girl could become his path back to the wife ad self-respect and overcoming his disillusionment. Plus, Thomas Jane does psycho so well that he would have been very convincing and creepier as a hired kiler. They could have argued back and forth some more interesting issues about how vets are treated and nihilism etc. while they are at a standoff.

[–] vidville 8 years ago

No, I think it's better the way it is.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

This

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] alesisqs61 8 years ago

No way ... Jane has a much more sympathetic face in the face of adversity.

Jane was perfect in this film as was Fishburne.

http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn

[–] iroquoisjoe 8 years ago

I think Fishburne could have done more/better with the good guy role. He has been pathetically underused in Hollywood in that capacity. It's a terrible waste. There was an excellent opportunity here to explore his ability to be vulnerable, troubled, compassionate, and heroic. The protagonist, in this movie, was the meatier role...and it would have been nice to see Mr. Fishburne have to extend to the full range of his acting abilities, even if that meant possibly straying out of his comfort zone...if he has one.

Thomas Jane didn't suck or anything, but I've seen him enough times as the stereotypical hollywood hero and honestly I would be happier seeing him playing an evil bad guy. Different people doing different things would be nice for a change 

On November 6, 2012 god blessed America...again. 

[–] Tutankhamun (85) 7 years ago

I think it would've worked, bit I'm sure Fishburne did this character because he liked the dialogue in what was most likely an offered part, and never questioned it. I'm sure he has enough status to ask for a specific role, which means he most likely wanted the challenge of creating this character. I do think he could've done both and it would've been just as good either way.

Otoh, I don't like seeing him as a villian, I didn't like it in his first film, except Deep Cover.

This only adds to the negative image that kids see growing up in a society that indoctrinates youth into the ignorant hatred of African Americans as a whole.

[–] redban (5203) 5 years ago

I agree. Not that Thomas Jane was bad, but Fishburne has more charisma and would have been able to garner more sympathy as the depressed protagonist.

Jane looks younger, is more athletic, and has a more man-of-mystery aura. He looks more like a hired assassin than Fishburne does.