u/SaiyanGod5462

Imagine if Jeff Fowler looks at this and decides to cast Tom as the voice of either Silver The Hedgehog or Big The Cat for the later on installments of the Sonic trilogy...

Here's why I think it could've absolutely worked:

1. Ian Somerhalder as Dante - Dante is mostly known for being cocky, carefree and having a devil-may-care attitude. He also makes witty comebacks towards any demon he faces. Ian's performance as Damon Salvatore in the show "The Vampire Diaries" has the natural cockiness and charm you would expect from Dante.

2. Tom Welling as Vergil - Vergil has a cold and calculating demeanor. He also has a pursuit for power and motivation. Tom's performance as Kal-El(mind controlled Clark) in Smallville Season 4 episode 1 highly mirrors Vergil's mannerisms and his quest for power.

Now here's the interesting part and the dramatic twist. If you swap the roles and actors, it would still work:

1. Tom Welling as Dante - Dante is a demon hunter who is incredibly cocky, quippy and having a devil-may-care. Tom's performance as Red Kryptonite Clark shows he can handle Dante's chaotic behavior.

2. Ian Somerhalder as Vergil - Vergil is shown to have a cold and calculating demeanor. Ian's performance as Miles Slade in The Tournament 2009 demonstrates that he is able to pull off Vergil's icy and ruthless behavior.

While I don't think either is the "perfect and definitive" casting, I still believe this castings would've solid and decent.

What do y'all think?

Lemme know in the comments.

Even though she's a great actress,

I'm gonna debunk her take here cuz it's wrong by many means:

1. She thinks that Heroes being flawed is interesting but acts like as if Marvel hasn't done that. This Is ironic and hypocritical. Marvel created a flawed-hero back in 1962 and that hero managed to become the most popular Marvel character to a point where he would be considered as the face of Marvel towards many fans. I'm referring to none other than Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Peter was incredibly flawed. He had money problems, was rather socially awkward and could be very selfish. He wasn't treated as a "perfect" superhero which was what made him memorable. Sometimes this could apply to other characters as well. Bruce Banner fears himself after the Gamma incident, Tony Stark was incredibly narcissistic, Steve Rogers struggled a lot and wants to lead the world in the right direction, Thor Odinson was a god but he was banished for being reckless and had to learn empathy etc

2. Her claim on that villains being human, interesting and having their own strength was something that Marvel hasn't done is also wrong. Not every villain in Marvel is the "supernatural or completely unreal" archetype. Look at Wilson Fisk/Kingpin, Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus. What made them memorable IS that they are human, not completely superfictional beings. Wilson was abused and had to kill his own father to protect his mother, he isn't evil because he wants to, he's evil because of how broken was. Otto Octavius was a respected scientist who believed in the good of science but it was a lab accident that turned him into the monster he was due to the arms being stuck permanently into his body and how his mind got damaged. I could even go deeper too, Loki was a villain not because for the fun of it but because he had an identity crisis, wasn't treated like how he wanted to and felt like an outsider, which made him feel like he wanted to prove himself worthy and kill Odin. Erik Killmonger had his father killed and he was exiled at a young age. Which led to him having a sense of justice due to his pain. While you can disagree with the morals, you can see the pain and feel bad for them.

3. Her saying that The Devils Wears Prada 2(which released a few days ago) is better cuz it's Messier. Marvel had lots of more stuff for a long time. It's variety of unique characters can make it a mess, but that doesn't make it the bad type of mess instead it creates the fun-type of mess in which you can actually enjoy it. It's particularly like that in two ways. The first way is that some Marvel comics can be incredibly campy and comical which makes it a fun read due to how it leans into the chaos while some other comics can lean into a more character-driven and narrative-chosen route in which you explore the more sadder but relatable version of the character. The second way is the amount of characters and it's different runs. Marvel has a variety of characters(X-Men, Fantastic Four, The Avengers, Daredevil, Spider-Man etc) which leads to lot of comics that explain why the character is who he/she is and the chance to explore their life. You could also be given the chance to learn about the side of the villains as well. Heck, the MCU stuff also experiment with different genres as well, The Avengers stuff is action-driven, Moon Knight and Werewolf by Night have horror elements. The Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and "Deadpool and Wolverine" lean into comedy but they become serious when necessary.

4. Her saying that Marvel is always the "good guys Vs bad guys" trope is dumb too. Marvel's "Thunderbolts*" movie showed that they can go beyond that trope due to the movie leaning to a more "family bonding" and "emotional connecting" tone, which worked incredibly well for the Marvel fans. "Captain America: Civil War" wasn't "good vs evil" but rather two perspectives of certain characters with both being somewhat right and somehow wrong, which worked well for fans and critics. Heck, Marvel comics have been doing this for years, multiple issues show they can go for different narratives than just "hero vs villain" if they want to. Magneto vs Charles Xavier in the comics, movies, TV shows and video games weren't completely the "good vs evil" trope the more you think of it. Both of them were treated horribly due to them being Mutants with gifts and they used to be best friends but they had different perspectives. Charles wanted Mutants and humans to live alongside while Magneto wanted to kill humanity completely and he believed humans were the ones why the world was corrupt. They both believed that they were doing the right thing but their methods didn't align.

Anyways, that's my take. Lemme know yours.