As any bourbon drinking, Cheetos snacking, brown bearded fanboy will tell ya’, Samuel L. Jackson wasn’t Marvel’s first live action Nick Fury. No, the House of Ideas produced a very telly version of the iconic character in 1998′s Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD. Bordering on self-parody, the film faithfully adapted the classic 60′s tone for which the character is so loved. Although, much else of the film failed, including (unfortunately) David Hasselhoff’s take on Nick Fury.
Well, the Hoffmeister doesn’t see it that way, and when asked about Samuel L. Jackson’s iteration, he had a few unkind words:
“You know, it wasn’t Nick Fury. They take these shows and they make it the way they want to make it and unfortunately, they should have had Stan Lee on the set and let him kick him into gear – whoever directed [The Avengers] decided they wanted to go that way. But it’s their prerogative. He’s still a great actor.”
“He’s still a great actor” is the equivalent of “No offense, but…”, no matter of pleasantry distracts from the insults. Be a man. Let your words cut like swords. Who needs friends in Hollywood, anyway?
Obviously Samuel L. Jackson’s version of Nick Fury is superior to Hasselhoff’s. I’m sorry Hoffmeister, I really love your tenacity, and your fidelity to the source material, but no matter of Stan Lee praise can excuse the inescapable poor quality of your TV movie production. That said, Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury is problematic. He’s neither a faithful adaptation of the traditional 616 universe’s Director of SHIELD, and he only bears a superficial resemblance to the Ultimate iteration of the character (Jackson actually served as the basis of Ultimate Fury in the original 2002 series). I still love Samuel L. Fury, and perhaps he’ll evolve in the next Avengers film, but he still hasn’t properly embodied comic book Nick.
What do you say? Hasselhoff right? Wrong?