Harry Potter News and Commentary
By Matthew
No.
Nothing has been confirmed about cast for the movie(s) but I thought we may have some fun before things are nailed down.
Time to cut loose and never mind the expense. Cast whomever you wish for the following roles.
Bilbo
Gandalf
Thorin
Balin
Gloin
Other dwarves
Smaug (voice)
Beorn
Thranduil
Elrond
Bard
Previous post: Mythopoeic Award Challenge
Next post: Two Items
Chris on Tell Us a Story
Red Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Joivre on Tell Us a StoryRed Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Tom on Friday Forum Reminder
Arabella Figg on Tell Us a Story
World Storytelling Day Stories on March 20th is World Storytelling DayRed Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Travis Prinzi on Tell Us a StoryJoivre on Tell Us a Story
Loading ...
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I thought I’d put my own ideas up.
Bilbo- Ian Holm is a great actor and could take it on no problem. After all, in LOTR Gandalf tells Bilbo that he appears to not have aged a day.
Gandalf- Ian MacKellen was great with what he had to work with in the LOTR movies. Wouldn’t feel right with anyone else.
Thorin- I think Patrick Stewart would do an excellent job. I big voice as required for Thorin and no prosthetics on the nose needed.
Balin- Sean Connery. Very distinguished with a beard and oldest of the dwarves in the party
Gloin- James Cosmo
Smaug (voice)- Michael Dorn. What a voice. As long as you could get past thinking Worf saying “Shields failing!” as Smaug flies over Laketown. A second option would be Clancy Brown.
Beorn- Brian Blessed all the way.
Thranduil- David Bowie.
Elrond- It’d have to be Hugo Weaving for the same reasons as MacKellen
Bard- Clive Owen.
Matthew
Matthew,
Don’t the dwarves have to be short?
Mind you, I just Googled John Rhys Davies and found out he’s taller than Mortensen or Bloom, so I guess there are ways of getting around that. It does bother me, though, to see how the camera angles are managed to make average sized people look short.
Maybe they should re-define the physical attributes of dwarfdom: make them hairy and bulked up with gruff voices, and not tall, but not too short either. And make the elves super-tall by way of comparison.
Re-casting Weaving as Elrond seems to me like throwing good money after bad. Weaving should play a dwarf, preferably a bad tempered one. For Elrond I nominate Liam Neeson.
Agree with McKellan for Gandalf. No need to mess with success. I like Ian Holm as Bilbo, but at 76 think he’s getting a little too old to play young Bilbo (and older than McKellen by 8 years).
I also think Ralph Fiennes would voice a good Smaug, if you’re thinking of evil rather than booming voice.
Matthew,
Clive Owen as Bard? Now that’s an inspired choice.
For Smaug I say get James Gammon. He has a nice gravely voice. I’d think he’d be perfect to follow up Richard Boone’s portrayal of Smaug in the animated Hobbit.
Okay, I just watched Jackson’s version of ROTK. I managed to keep from gouging my eyes out, but just barely. My tummy still hurts but I’m hoping that goes away.
All I can say is, I hope The Hobbit movie is nowhere near as awful as the LOTR was. It won’t matter who they cast in the roles if they just end up changing the nature & motivations of the characters. And if the vision of the director ends up trumping the theme of the book, like Jackson did to LOTR.
revgeorge,
How long after watching ROTK did it take for your eyes to stop bleeding?
The troll that Aragorn fights in front of the Black Gate was actually going to be Sauron but they CGI’d the troll in afterwards. I would have self-immolated if that had gone ahead.
Bunch of purists.
Agrees with Travis.
I like the books and the movies, but view the movies as more of a fan-fiction rather then a movie version of the books… Prevents said actions.
Ralph Fiennes would make a good voice for Smaug but I think Alan Rickman would have a better voice for the dragon. He’s got that ever-so-slight, slur, to his words that you’d expect from a cruel-hearted dragon.
Beorn needs to have an rugged outdoorsy type of look, kind of rough looking, strong looking, tall. Needs to have a strong physical presence that says “This dude is dangerous.” It won’t do to have the Dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo knock on the door and have Sir. Michael Gambon open it.
Hugo Weaving is what folks expect Elrond to look like, however there is an author that looks similar to Weaving but doesn’t frown. But we need actors not authors. Humm.
Agree with Travis and Shane too. Whoever said that films need to be exact representations of books ?
As far as I know production companies make films to introduce the stories to people how have not read the books (would be no point otherwise). And for the people who have not read the books, the limited time filmmakers have must be spend telling a story that is enjoyable and logical. Therefore books are cannon and films are extras.
Do you not have he same thing watching the Harry Potter films ? People often say that the first two are the worst. But I actually like them a lot because they are more cannon. I enjoy the rest immensely as a partial representation of the books. Nothing more. Had the same thing with The Golden Compass.
But to get back to topic… I haven’t read further than ‘The unexpected party’, but reading the description of Beorn…
“… needs to have an rugged outdoorsy type of look, kind of rough looking, strong looking, tall. Needs to have a strong physical presence that says “This dude is dangerous.””
…how about Christian Bale ?
For Smaug – how about Vin Diesel? He voiced the giant in the Iron Giant and has the right kind of sound for a big fire breathing dragon.
For Beorn, get Kane or some other pro wrestler. Some of them can act in addition to being big & hairy.
Well, well, well. There may not be a Hobbit film now. Here’s a link to a yahoo story I just saw entitled “Tolkien Estate Sues New Line Cinema.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_en_mo/tolkien_lawsuit
Enjoy!
I thought of Vin Diesel for Smaug too.
Agree that Clive Owen is an inspired choice for Bard.
Matthew and revgeorge, I think you have weak stomachs. I knew exactly what we were in for when I saw Glorfindel, he of hair of shining gold and voice like music transformed into Arwen Undomiel at the river ford.
reyhan,
I didn’t mind the switch to Arwen in FOTR. Actually, I quite liked the first movie. I actually thought, hey, they might be able to pull this off. But then came Two Towers & then ROTK, & Jackson’s vision just kept getting worse & worse.
Did you know that it was going to Arwen who came to Helm’Deep and helps save the day for the Rohirrim and that only a fan outcry during production stalled it?
I suppose I am a purist and I don’t mind being called that when it means that I don’t like change for change sake. The changes did nothing to improve the story. I realise that a movie cannot be exactly like the book. It just wouldn’t work. But I’d prefer things to be omitted than non-Tolkien stuff added.
Thanks for the heads-up with that link, revgeorge. Better off with no Hobbit movie than one made by people who cannot be sure they’ll get paid at the end of the day.
Matthew
Hmmm… not a positive article. Makes New Line look like a bunch of money grubbers. Hope they deal with this accordingly.
I’m right with you, Matthew. I don’t mind changes in the movies, but only if they advance the story line & don’t mess with the story itself. Jackson was changing things & adding in things that totally did not need to be done. Plus, he was turning heroic, noble characters into doubt riddled, cowards.
But to bring this back to Harry Potter, I totally enjoyed the first three movies, except for Cuaron’s talking heads, but other than that, POA rocked! GOF not so much. Not because a lot of stuff was cut out, but because of the way the stuff that was left in was handled. OOTP I thought was great, even though much of the book had to be left out. And any changes helped mostly to serve the plot, rather than the director’s ‘vision.’
I wouldn’t call myself a purist. I’m ok with changes, if I feel that they are true to the spirit of the books. It’s when the changes clearly go against the spirit of the books that I lose my faith in the movie.
Of course the crucial point of that approach is: what is the spirit of the books? Roughly, I’d define that as things the author could have included or wouldn’t feel were alien to her/his world, versus the things that he/she would never have included. That would include dialogue which a certain character wouldn’t use and acts a character wouldn’t commit – because they weren’t in character, and events which were unlikely to happen because they would have changed outcomes.
I did not like the talking heads in PoA (not being into talking heads in general) but I didn’t feel they were against the spirit, mainly because there is a considerable Caribbean immigrant population in Britain, and why would some of them not be wizards and bring their cultural artefacts (which is what I took the talking heads to be) with them? That would be no different than the Durmstrangs and their quasi-Russian hats and uniforms and Estonian heritage, or the girls from Beauxbatons and their jaunty French hats. Mind you, I can’t remember if that was in the book, or wished upon the movie by the costume designer. They were clearly French, however.
The scenes between Lupin and Harry in PoA are another example. I’m not sure that they correspond exactly to the books, or that the conversations are exactly as in the books, but to my mind they are faithful to how the books depict the relationship, and they don’t go beyond what the books say; they just portray the relationship in a moving way. Same for Harry’s relationship with Sirius Black in OotP. And I’m not sure that everything that Harry and Ron and Hermione say to each other in the movies is in the books, but they feel right. They are things those characters could easily have said to each other.
On the other hand, the way Gambon speaks and moves and manhandles Harry (and hits Ron’s leg in PoA) is clearly not Dumbledore. That is not in the spirit of the books, even if he is speaking dialogue from the books.
I can’t do a very exact analysis of the LOTR movies because I don’t know them as well. I have heard Matthew’s and revgeorge’s rants against the liberties taken in the movies, especially with Faramir and Aragorn. Neither struck me as that egregious, but I do know that I did not like either casting choice. I love Mortensen, but not as Aragorn, not nearly stern and steely-eyed enough (although he does have the cleft chin). And too inward looking, and not kingly enough. A better Strider than an Aragorn, actually. So in a roudabout way, I had less expectations of either character because the casting didn’t fit in the first place.
But Arwen at the ford? That to me was the outside of enough. The role of beautiful noble warrior maiden was already taken, to misquote Donkey from Shrek II, there was no need to add another. Also, Arwen was not written as a warrior. There was nothing – nothing – in the books to suggest that she would ever have ridden a horse to save Aragorn, let alone Frodo. Plus, were there not Elven warriors enough in her father’s house to ride to the rescue?
I believe they were paying Liv Tyler a lot of money to be in the films; had to use her somehow instead of just sitting in the background. Plus, there was some background material on Aragorn & Arwen in the appendixes of the ROTK. Nice to know that Aragorn is fighting so hard not just to reclaim his kingship but out of love. The movie just seemed to take it too far.
I also know what you mean, reyhan, about a movie capturing the spirit of a book without necessarily having all the bits in the film. The old Dune film, 1984, I think, captured the spirit of Dune although it radically departed from the story. And yet the miniseries made by Scifi didn’t capture the heart of the story although it stayed closer to the novel. Same way with the original Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory capturing the spirit of the book whilst the newer film did not.
As for GOF, the entrance of the Durmstrang students was one of the coolest bits in there, although in the book both the Beauxbatons & Durmstrang entrances are rather low key. My main problem with GOF was that it seemed to miss the spirit of the book, whereas the other 4 had it.
Although I can agree with your sentiments on the spirit of the books, I have to take a different point of view.
To me (and Travis has spent some time in previous podcasts on the same topic) JKR’s job is to write the story, our job is to read the story and the film producers jobs are to visualise the story.
Sure, the books are the bases of the films, but JKR didn’t write the films, she wrote the books and therefore I would like to keep more distance between films and the respective books they are based on, whether it be Harry Potter, Narnia, His Dark Materials, Lord of the Rings or any other book adapted film.
And personally, I think GOF missed the spirit of the book because Newell turned it into an American blockbuster…
I’m not sure I grasp your point, LunaLouise. Certainly, the books are not the film, nor are the films the book, but they are inextricably linked. As for me, I’ve always firmly believed that a movie, no matter how good it is or how close to the spirit of the book it hits, is still only a pale shadow. A movie misses so many nuances & so much character building that you can only pick up by immersing yourself in the books.
Yes and although of course the books and films tell the same story. I have always felt that it is unjust to compare the two to each other. In such an comparison, films will lose out no matter what. Exactly your point.
I think that films are always going to be a let down from the fan point of view. And they are not made for ‘the fan’. ‘The fan’ does not need a film when the books are around. There is such a vast body of cannon in the books. Nothing the films could ever touch upon.
So when discussing changes in films that deviate from cannon – like making Arwen more an elven fighter than just elven daughter – I always think that those changes are justified to make the film better just because the two are so vastly different entities. Even though the average fan might not agree. To ‘the non-fan’ such as me for LOTR for instance, Arwen would just have been a waste of film if she had not taken on the fighter or rather protector role for Frodo. The fan might not see that because they are prejudiced against Arwen ever taking up a role like that. So although you say that spirit of the books is the most important and changes are allowed as long as they serve the plot, I think only non-fans are allowed to comment on that, as fans are by nature to prejudiced with the cannon.
I had said earlier that I like all films. But if you do want to hear my spirit of the books call, I will say that in that case I personally liked OotP least. To me when reading that book, the spirit of the book throughout was the Order of the Phoenix, I’m guessing that’s why that is the book title. Although Harry of course is in school and is confronted with the Toad and her ministry daily and wants to start up the resistance against that, to me the everlasting motivator is to find out what the Order is up to and wanting to join them and openly taking a stand. Just because that’s not possible, the kids start their own piece de la resistance. In my opinion the film, did a disastrous job of telling that story. How about killing the spirit, eh ?
Lunalouise wrote:
“So although you say that spirit of the books is the most important and changes are allowed as long as they serve the plot, I think only non-fans are allowed to comment on that, as fans are by nature to prejudiced with the cannon.”
I’ll agree with you on most points in your above post, except for the quote here. By definition, non-fans are the ones who are the least able to tell how closely a film matches the spirit of the book on which it was based, simply because they are non-fans.
Sorry, I should have pulled that apart. I didn’t refer to spirit judging, but to change judging. I should have written: Your opinion is that the spirit of the books is the most important. And in your opinion changes are only allowed as long as they serve the plot. But I think fans are very bad judges of what is a functional change or not, just because fans naturally have a strong adherence to the original text. I think non-fans are by far better judges of whether a character or sequence makes sense because they possess a far greater objectivity. As an example I used my own judgement of Arwen.
Thanks for giving me the room to clarify.
Sorry, I think this has become a runaway topic…
No problem, LunaLouise. I should also say that I am not saying changes should only be allowed so long as they serve the plot. I just would prefer it that way.
I don’t think it’s helpful if non-fans are drawn into a story by the movie & then when reading the book are disappointed or dissatisfied because the book is radically different than the movie version they saw.
I especially get upset when I then hear non-fans talking about how good the movie was compared to the book. Just irritates me.
But then, as I said, I’m not saying things have to be done a certain way in translating books to movies. There are just ways that I would prefer it would be done & ways that I think are more helpful than other ways.
LunaLouise,
As for runaway topics, I think that’s something we do a lot here on SOG.
Here’s an interesting story about New Line and their alleged form.
Yes, that was an interesting story, Matthew. I’ve always been fascinated how a movie company could make hundreds of millions of dollars on a film but on paper end up losing hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, leaving just enough to pay the director & the big stars & the production company but not anyone else. Makes you wonder why they keep making movies if they always lose so much money?
Well, I say that Orcs deserved to be paid, too!
I totally agree with the Patrick Stewart selection for Thorin. I just viewed a piece on his portayal of MacBeth, and this is exactly the kind of Shakespearean, conflicted, proud enactment required by Thorin’s character. He would have the fire and the chops, and the voice.
Does anybody know who is actually doing tha casting in New Zealand or teh UK?