For months, we heard rumors that actor Nathan Fillion was in the running to play Hank Pym aka Antman in the upcoming “Avengers” movie.
And while Fillion is eager to take on the role and work with director Joss Whedon again, he thinks his commitment to his current series “Castle” may keep him out of the running.
“That would be a lovely fantasy,” he tells MTV News. “The fact is that I’m on ‘Castle’ right now, and that’s 10 months out of the year. So, unless they’re filming for two months, on my months off, there’s just no possible way it could logistically be done.”
However, if it could be worked out, Fillion would jump at the chance to work again when Whedon.
Fillion went on to say that he misses working with Whedon on “Firefly.”
“I miss him terribly,” he said of playing Mal. “I love that character. I loved how much he would lose. I loved that he was a loser. He kept losing, but it never stopped him. He would fight, knowing he would lose. I love that about him. He wouldn’t stop.”
He must have been watching a different show than I did . . . the character did not lose . . . he (and the others) encountered difficulties, but generally prevailed.
I thought that was the point of the show; people faced with difficult situations relying, sometimes reluctantly, on each other to get through them.
That's why Fillion is one of my favorite actors right now. You can tell he is just having so much fun being the characters he plays. Even when things aren't going well for them.
@ejdalise: Mal absolutely was a loser.
He even says he fought "on the wrong side" in the war.
You seem to think that being a "loser" is necessarily a bad thing.
Mal...and the rest of the Firefly crew...are a gang of misfits and losers, but they *keep flying*.
They're outlaws. They're pirates. They're crooks and brawlers...but they have a moral core. So much so that if they're stealing something that someone else desperately needs (see "The Train Job".) they'll give it back, both the booty and their fee for pulling the job.
That having been said: I'm so happy for Nathan that he's in a big-time TV series and that *everyone* now knows what we Firefly fans knew the minute we saw Mal walk up to a bar and order a drink...in Chinese.
I hesitate to get into this, but . . .
He specifically denies fighting on the wrong side. He calls it the losing side (Serenity, I think). That said, he cannot be held personally responsible for losing the war, so I'm not sure how that makes him a loser.
Additionally, in every episode he, and the crew, prevail against individuals and situations, emerging closer, stronger, and wiser.
As far as misfits, pirates, crooks, brawlers . . . loser does not necessarily follow from any of those. In fact, some of today's best known crooks are considered quite successful, and carry a significant measure of respect (bankers, congressmen, senators, CEOs). Likewise for misfits (writers of sparkling vampires), brawlers (almost any sport personality), pirates (er . . . I'm sure there are some).
The point being the series does not cast the captain and crew as losers. Perhaps one can hold to them not meeting the standards of high society, but we, the fans, would gladly (or at least I would) take on even a tenth of the reputation, admiration, and recognition those fictional characters elicit. I will posit that is not the case for a loser.
Most of all, Mal cannot see himself as a loser, or he would not be able to accomplish all that he had. And his crew cannot be looking at Mal as a loser, or they would not follow him, be loyal to him, and risk their lives for him.
Now, perhaps we differ in what we consider a loser. In the dictionary definition, it refers to someone who is bested in an activity. This I did not see in any of the episodes or the movie.
In the modern vernacular the word generally is associated with a worthless person. Again, I did not see this quality in Mal.
But, I respect whatever interpretation a given fan has as long as they are in fact, a fan.
I will throw my 2 cents into the ring on the use and definition of "loser", especially when it applies to my favorite Browncoats and smugglers
"Loser" doesn't even apply to the person or team that lost a competition anymore. These days, it has an immediate association with someone who is of negligible character (something that transcends good, evil or the grey areas in between), someone who has no wish nor desire to achieve better than the slop that circumstances have handed them on a plate, someone who would not fight for themselves, much less give a second thought to anyone else's plight.
Given that modern connotation of the word, no one on Serenity's crew fits that bill, not even Jayne at his most selfish moments
I don't know what word you'd use, because classifying Mal and Zoe as "defeated" doesn't count either. Their commanding officers surrendered the battle and the war, and conceded defeat to end the conflict. They might have stopped fighting a war, but they never stopped fighting for what they believed in. That's not something a "loser" would ever do, unless something motivated them to change that behavior... at which point they'd have evolved enough to no longer be a loser.
Yes they scrape by every episode, but even when they have a win, they lose - Ariel's a perfect example; sure they make a big score, but the alliance gets closer and they have to give all the money away next episode. Most modern tv/movies wouldn't consider ending the story with the main characters still poor and on the run a win. What makes mal a great charater isn't that he thinks he isn't a loser, its that he thinks its worth fighting anyway.
(reading it back, my post may sound argumentative - not meant to be. must my take)
I am so used to carrying the nay-sayer, cynic, everything-is-bad side of the argument that I cannot believe I'm on this side of this argument. Still, unaccustomed as I am . . .
By your definition, the majority of humanity (95% plus) are losers, scraping by, any good luck they have quickly wiped out by yet another bad turn in their fortunes.
I go back to the definitions I listed above, and ask what are you (and random tall people) basing your judgment on? Fame? Fortune? Good teeth? . . . 'cause, you know, the whole cast has excellent teeth.
Seriously, even by my often pessimistic and sometimes cynical view of humanity, I find it hard to classify the majority of humanity as losers. Sure, drug users, drunks, people who eat at Taco Bell, but the rest of us struggle the best we can, and still manage a smattering of dignity and integrity in our daily lives.
Besides, what standard are we to be judged on? The example of Bill Gates? President Obama? Brittany Spears? No way I'm going around commando.
Ultimately I judge the character on his merits as an, albeit fictional, human being. I would be proud to have my daughter, if I had one, marry the man, despite his dubious endeavors and shady companions. I would have no qualms calling the man a friend, even as I eye the large reward for the Tams.
As far as movies with characters ending up no better than what the started, there are a number of them if you are talking about monetary riches.
What most do end up with, however, is a better understanding of themselves, or new friends, or a love interest, or some amount of personal growth that elevate them above loser status. In Mal's case, I still argue he was never there to begin with.
And if I sound argumentative, you're darn tooting I am!! The man is practically a buddy of mine, and I have a certain amount of loyalty toward my buddies (when convenient). {insert appropriate smilie indicating humor here, here, and here}
. . . wow . . . I don't know what to say.
This is a first; someone pretty much, maybe, I think, agreeing with me . . . it feels . . .weird.
A history of always being on the losing side. Knowing the chances are his luck won't change this time around either, but not letting that stop him from trying.
*That* - is what Nathan Fillion was talking about.
"I love that he was a loser. He kept losing . . . "
He might have meant that, but that's not what he said.
And, again, in which episodes exactly did they "lose". Near as I remember from my gazillion viewings, the situation/hurdle/challenge/adversary were always bested.
I'll grant Natham may have misspoken, or meant something else, but the quote is pretty clear. Being my buddy, I'm willing to cut him some slack, especially since I'm not at all certain he was quoted correctly.
Perhaps next time we chat I'll ask him if he really thought Mal as a "loser". Oh, OK, I don't really know him . . . I know Mal.