|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Jul 10, 2020 17:00:32 GMT
Might as well do this too. Once again, both great in the part. McKellen like Stewart brings a certain gravitas with a little cheekiness. He’s a great and threatening villain, but never feels over the top with hints of humanity. He just walks that fine line. Fassbender on the other hand, shows us more of that humanity. Even when the material isn’t great(ex: Apocalypse), he gives it a 100 and 10 percent. It’s very close, but I’m gonna give a point to the younger generation with Fassbender. Have at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 10, 2020 17:06:59 GMT
Sir Ian.
The reason the X-Men franchise lasted 20 years, is because McKellen, Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman forced us to take those characters completely seriously in that first movie. If they didn't nail those roles, the franchise would have been dead before it started.
Fassbender could build on Mckellen's work, and do it admirably, but I couldn't really say he was "better". And Mckellen was much more charismatic, wheras Fassbender was more moody and brooding. McKellen also had a playful, humerous quality I enjoyed that was mostly lacking in Fassbender.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 10, 2020 17:21:30 GMT
Definitely McKellen.
Funnily enough, while it seems like McAvoy was slavish in his devotion to play a younger Stewart to the point that he felt too shackled to that fealty to do anything inspired with the part, I feel like Fassbender was doing something different than what McKellen was doing, and it just wasn't landing. He had his moments, but ultimately none of the new X-Men generation could eclipse who came before them.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 10, 2020 17:50:39 GMT
Sir McKellen.
Better Magneto, better performances, better movies.
|
|
