DC Films

Which, to be fair, is exatly why Glover sued, because unless you were following film press at the time you probably thought it was the same bloke as they literally had him made up like Glover, try to do Glover's voice, and deliberately kept him in the background for most of the scene so you couldn't tell it was a different guy. 

And I'd say the same is true for the Red Skull, to a certain extent: unless you'd read Hugo Weaving bitching about making The First Avenger, you'd presumably not know it wasn't the same guy in the makeup in Infinity War. Now, like I said, I do think there's a difference, because Weaving didn't originate the character the way Glover did, but with precedent having been set, I agree it possible that an actor might be inclined to sue in these circumstances, but I think that would be an overreaction, probably not get anywhere, and I don't think Weaving was ever that arsed.

Edited to add: knowing all this shit about the making of the BTTF trilogy, and Glover's thoughts on the matter (which he still seems a little bit pissed off about), it's interesting watching the BTTF musical, where almost all the actors are doing very mannered impressions of the film's cast, to the extent of certain line readings sounding almost identical. And when I saw it in Manchester a couple of years ago, the bloke playing George looked, sounded, and acted exactly like Glover. I keep waiting for the second lawsuit to drop...

Did Marty's girlfriend sue as well?

So basically nick’s post was fine and aubergine was doing an bad acckkshhuuaally post

Good point. In that instance, the studio put prosthetics on another actor to make him look like Crispin Glover and Glover successfully sued. In this case, Marvel put prosthetics on Hugo Weaving to make him look like Red Skull, and Weaving put on a voice to sound German. He would not have been compensated directly for that.

This is a good read about the BTTF 2 kerfuffle for anyone interested:

www.ranker.com/list/crispin-glover-back-to-the-future-2-lawsuit/mike-mcgranaghan

They’re exactly the same thing. In both cases different actors were made to look and sound like the original actor’s take on that character. In both cases the intent was to trick audiences into thinking they’re played by the original actor (successfully as seen in this thread).

I think the difference here between Back to the Future and Avengers is the Red Skull was a pre-existing character that Weaving was made up to look and sound like so any replacement would also be made to look like that.

Someone is wrong on the internet!

Hopefully the sequel tells us what happened to Bruce's parents.

I don't know about that, the voice was clearly intended to ape Weaving's so much so that I thought it was the same actor. I don't think there's a set voice for the character other than what Weaving initially brought to the role. It was imo 100% intentional.

The final line in the film is one of the greatest in cinema history.

Did Norton's Hulk look like him? I didn't really see that, all the others yeah, Ruffalo's especially.

A bit but not hugely obvious which is probably as much related to technology as the design choice and/or Norton’s head being a bit bland in hulk form.

Lou Ferrigno looked the most like his own Hulk.

I think the difference with the Hulk example is, especially in Ruffalo's case, it's performance capture so that's literally his likeness (I might be wrong but I think Ruffalo is the first actor to be mo-capped as the Hulk). It'd be like if in Avatar 3 they cast someone else as Jake Sooly but the big blue cat-man still looked exactly like Sam Worthington.

And I think we will actually see a lawsuit along these lines in the next decade, where a studio thinks they own the rights to an actor's likeness and gets someone else to impersonate them via CGI.