Very interesting idea, Vhanja. I would include Stephen Ezard from "The Last Enemy" who is described on Wikipedia quite aptly:

The story is told through the eyes of a mathematical genius, Stephen Ezard, who is portrayed as a recluse showing some signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder. But the shy genius, played by Cumberbatch with many pre-echoes of his later, celebrated Sherlock Holmes' brittle reclusive, overcomes his own inhibitions ...

I find it fascinating how Benedict gives life to these characters whose genius is the only common feature. I agree about Strange and Sherlock being the only truly arrogant characters and even these two are completely different from each other. 
 

Well, unfortunately "The last enemy", in spite of B. acting skills never convinces fully as a character. There are some similarities between Ezard and Turing, but he is not round enough character to be really interesting.

Very good idea for the thread, Vanhja!

I definitely think the Marvel team have chosen popular actors and certainly Benedict will have impressed in Sherlock...

Vhanja wrote:

I have never read Dr. Strange, but I always assumed that his personality was taken from the comics, not inspired by Sherlock.

I agree (though I haven't read Dr. Strange either). And I believe that Benedict Cumberbatch was cast for the role because (parts of) his portrayal of Sherlock corresponded to how the director wanted Dr. Strange portrayed.

Vhanja wrote:

I don't view a character as being arrogant, that is to say that arrogant is a main feature of the character, if they show it in one or two scenes out of many.

Okay, I'll give you Stephen Hawking as not arrogant. However, the first approx. 10 minutes of The Imitation Game span most of Alan Turings adult life - from the job interview at Bletchley Park to  being arrested, presented in reverse order. And in both situations he's shown as arrogant - there is no suggestion of a development.

Vhanja wrote:

That would mean that Khan is a warm and caring persona because he cried in pain over his lost crew. He might care about them, but that is not a main feature of his character.

I'll need to watch Star Trek into Darkness again, but as far as I remember I never saw Khan as the main villain of the movie or had trouble understanding his motivations... (but then I remember the original Khan who hated Kirk because he held him responsible for getting his beloved wife and much of his crew killed which connects back to the original series - the whole pre-story that's missing from the remake. What were they thinking?)

To go back to Vhanja's original post, right now I'm at Benedict Cumberbatch playing four arrogant geniuses: Sherlock, Khan, Alan Turing and Dr. Strange,

one not-arrogant genius: Stephen Hawking

and one arrogant not-genius: Assange

Considering that BC hasn't made all that many movies, I do think that shows a tendency towards being typecast. Which might be just one of the reasons why he started his own production company...
 

I see a similarity between dr Strange and Sherlock; they are arrogant because they know they are "good" and they love being the smartest man in the room. They both got punished for their hubris: Strange - car accident (but it is only the beginning of the long way to the humility) Sherlock by "Norbury" incident.

The whole point with Touring, I think, is that he seems arrogant, but it is not his intention. (at least how he is portrayed in the film). Unlike Strange & Sherlock he doesn't care about being admired and acclaimed.

Khan is arrogant, but in a different way than S&S. He "knows" he is better because he has been engineered as such, but his arrogance stems from believing, that being better he cannot be beaten by a "weaker" opponent, such a Spock. And yet again, his hubris is the motive of his ruin, but in this case, it is all more tragic because he was not interested in personal glory, but in saving his people.

Last edited by miriel68 (November 17, 2017 10:58 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Sherlock and Dr. Strange seem a bit more similar at first glance. They are both devoted to their work above everything else, and they are both very arrogant, thinking that the world revolves around themselves. However, there are also great differences. Dr. Strange (before the accident) places value in things like materialism, money, status and women - Sherlock couldn't care less for any of these things. Dr. Strange embraces the luxury of life, Sherlock has deliberately chosen to abstain.

What an interesting thread. There are definitely some similarities. I wonder if when the director is casting the roles and visualising how the end product will look like they are naturally drawn to actors who have excellently portrayed a similar role in the past. That is not a criticism of BC as someone only able to play a particular type as it is obviously not the case. 

The idea of Sherlock choosing to abstain from luxuries made me wonder. He is less flashy about it than Dr Strange for sure. However his coat costs more than a second-hand car, his drugs of choice are not cheap and he travels around London in taxis. Not exactly a puritan lifestyle. Whilst he does not spend money for the case of spending he does not deny himself luxury either. A minor point in the overall discussion I admit.

belis wrote:

... I wonder if when the director is casting the roles and visualising how the end product will look like they are naturally drawn to actors who have excellently portrayed a similar role in the past. ...

I'm convinced they are, if the circumstances are right (i. e. there was a similar role, the actor is still alive, and available, and affordable, and interested). Or they might have seen something they liked when the actor was playing a seemingly completely different role (Stephen Spielberg chose Eric Bana for Munich based on his performance in the human parts of Hulk). But I'm sure that it's a lot easier for an actor to get offered a role if the director can see in a previous performance that he will be right for the part.
 

Possibly that's why they are top actors(in Mark's case) , producers and writers...and we are not!

Kittyhawk wrote:

I love the idea of Khan as the movie's tragic hero! Now I really must get hold of it again! 

One of the critics called Khan "shakepearean" villain and I really see him as a kind of tragic hero - or antihero, if you want.

TBH I must confess I feel very uncomfortable with STiD ending, because it seems after all Khan WAS right: the Starfleet is the enemy". It is not only Marcus: we can see that supposedly "good guys" let Khan's people rot in hibernation indefinitely, which is if fact death sentence.
Also, if Kirk's crew was taken hostage (which did happen in Star Trek beyond, but the irony was evidently lost to the producers) he still would be a "good guy" fighting for the justice, no matter what measures taken. Something about this is troubling me deeply.
The history is written by the winners...