there's still hope for someone other than Uma. I am hoping.
I have not read the books, or even seen the animated version of LOTR, tell me all you fans, should i read the book first or wait for the film? Just asking. Thanks. ps Jar Jar sucks
missed it by that much!
read the books. Build middle-earth for yourself in your own imagination. Experience the richness of the texture of the words Tolkien crafted. Spend the days or weeks it takes to read these books. For all the reasons you read books, read these. Then go see the movie in two years(!) and see what you think. Enjoy!
Pleast stop writing 'no one' as one word! There is no such word as 'noone'!!!
I *do* love your site, but you desperately need a proof-reader for your stories.
I don't think Harry gives a shit how he spells. Hence, you shouldn't either.
Really, Harry, get a frippin' spellcheck.
He *should* care. It can only detract from his otherwise excellent site. Therefore, he should get a spell-checker or hire someone to edit for him. Will I continue to come to Harry's site? Yes. Will I continue to be put off by his spelling and grammatical errors? Yes. Would his articles read better and convey his points better if he had an editor? Yes. Just some constructive criticism for an otherwise excellent site.
August 19, 1999 4:21 PM CST
by Zeylan
Why should Harry be any different? This site is an illiterate's wet dream. Anyway, back on the subject at hand, has pre-production for this movie even started yet? Or is all of that waiting for the casting to be completed?
I have had 6 years of high school and I think I speels fine.
i just pray you're right Harry. Ethan as Farimir? please please please don't let this happen. Uma-i've-got-about-as-much-personality-as-a-toaster as the most fanatastically sublime lady G.? NOOOOO!!!!!! How many wonderful actors and actresses are toiling away on stages in every major city in the world....mine some unknown talent and make this movie a NEW world, not some film full of hollywood castaways. i wouldn't even consider these two as A-list. anyway, whatever.....and leavce Harry's speling alone.
Argh, I just went over this at TheOneRing.net. What the hell is wrong with Uma as Galadriel?!? The on;y actress I'd rather have play the part is Cate Blanchett. Uma most certainly *can* act, she's extremely ethereal-looking, and to all those who claim "she's not pretty enough"...is that what we're casting based on? I know a lot of you are teenage boys, but it's a lot more important that Galadriel be elfin-looking, dignified, and unearthly than that she be a sexpot. In fact, I really think having Gal. be too gorgeous would work *against* the character. I think Uma has the perfect "look" for Galadriel...sort of a "sterile beauty", like the Mona Lisa. Beautiful, but not sexy. And age-wise, she's hard to pin down. I really think she fits the role. Ethan Hawke is another story...that always seemed like stunt casting (and why, since Faramir and Galadriel don't even have any screen time?!?) Still, I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand.
Since Cate Blanchett is now older and more impressive than the said Aragorn, it's looking like she might fry him as Eowyn... Hence, I second (or second-hundred?) her nomination for a kick-ass Galadrial.
Well Uma or no Uma the casting is great so far so stop complaining and bitching for nothing. It is an impossibility to please everyone with these movies so there is obviously going to be some dissapointed people. For those of you who don't know this yet, That's life! You don't always get what you want, if you did it would be a boring world and it would deprive some of you people with no lives of the opportunity to grasp at one by the only means you have at your disposal: whinning like a baby or being vulgar. It's amazing to me that people who have read LOTR can be so base and low and whinny. I for one will wait until the movies are out to pass judgement on them and for now I will just thrust the director to do the best he can to bring his vision of LOTR, not yours or mine to the screen. If your so angry or dissapointed because New Line or M. Jackson has not heard you pathetic complaints and remolded the entire project to your liking then when the movie comes out stay home, go on the net and do what you do best: complain anonymously, safely hidden behind your internet nickname from where you can pretend you have a life. the best way to get your point across is to express yourself calmly and rationaly using fact based arguments backed of course by your own beliefs. Ranting and whinning will get you nowhere. So leave the project alone if you can't voice your opinions in a calm and pleasant way. Of course most of those I'm refering to will just "flame" me for beaing such a "stuck up snob" or something but what I just said comes from a long time of reading the Talk backs and seeing too much whinners and complainers. Cheers
In a perfect world Christy Turlington would play Galadriel. She is the most beautiful woman in the world after all... http://christy.turlington.com/
the worldwouldbe perfect indeed if Christy Turlington has the actingchops of EmmaThompson and the emotiveness of Gillian ANDERSON :) But it is not!Uma would be cool as Galadriel....
Dsight - I think you ought to listen to your own advice - your post was as "whiny" (please note correct spelling) as the ones about which you have been complaining. Why should everything have to be fact-based and rational? Let people express what they are feeling or thinking - what difference does it make to you, or to Peter Jackson? No difference. But it is interesting to a lot of other people to find out what fellow fans are thinking. Given the casting moves so far, I also "thrust" Jackson. I hope this rumor is true - no Hawke or Thurman. I can't suggest anyone for either part (I have seen about three movies in theaters in the past four years and don't know who anyone is, including Blanchette), but I can definitely say that neither of these two fits my vision of the two characters, particularly Hawke.
So far I have been very pleased with the casting for LOTR. Nevertheless, whining is half the fun...and there shall be whining aplenty if either of those boring, inappropriate actors are cast as Galadriel or Faramir. Yikes, it's a terrible thought.
Brother, are we picky. And brother, do we all have vastly different ideas as to what these characters look like. In the end, we're all going to be a little dissapointed. I certainly imagined Aragorn differently than this Townsend chap who seems to have been cast (I'll say it one last time - Sean Bean), but in the end, I place my trust in Peter Jackson. I know that puts a lot of pressure on the poor guy, but from the Q&A sessions Harry's had with him, I know he's at least going to TRY and do it right. Have we all forgotten when a certain company (>cough< >cough< . . . DISNEY) had their eyes on this property? Can you imagine? The Horror. The Horror. One rumor had them changing both Samwise AND Gandalf into a females, for cripe's sake. At the VERY LEAST, we have someone with a reverence for the material. I'll take that over the right "look" for Galadriel anyday.
When I think of Uma Thurman I think of her role in Pulp Fiction which then mysteriously transmogrifies into an image of Galadriel snorting Coke...
I would suggest Gwyneth Paltrow for Galadriel, I think she'd be good at the stately, beautiful, thing needed for an elf. Uma Thurman would be terrible, not enough of a classic beauty to carry off the charachter. Who's Eowyn? They'll have to beleivable with a sword for the ringwraith scene. I'm looking forward to seeing who plays Legolas and Gimli, two of my favourite charachters. I hope they don't cut off the ending at the destruction of the ring, the aftermath and the scouring of the Shire were two of my favourite parts. It's a good arguement for the focus of the story to be Sam Gangee, as the last we'll see of the film should be him at home with his family where he says "Well, I'm back".
uhhm,isn't Galadriel supposed to be beautiful?
I think Morpheus will find that Bilbo's song actually begins with "All that is gold does not glitter", NOT "All that glitters is not gold". And I wish people would stop saying that the film won't be seen for two years -- it's actually only 16 months!!! (As opposed to 24 months.)
I think Morpheus will find that Bilbo's song actually began with "All that is gold does not glitter", NOT "All that glitters is not gold". And I wish people would stop saying that the film won't be seen for two years -- it's actually only 16 months!!! (As opposed to 24 months.)
...or rather those with money to burn. Try http://www.badalijewelry.com/badalihp.htm. You can sit at home and guard your ver own 'precious'. If you were odd that is.
Glinterstine -- If the report from back in early July on "theonering.net" was true, then The Fellowship of the Rings" release date has been pushed from DEC 00 to JUN 01, so it's more like 22 months...more's the pity. Does anyone know if that report was confirmed anywhere else? Namarie.
That's my preferance. Uma is not who I see, though maybe she could play it. It would see silly to cast Uma and Ethan as a couple that don't ever meet. Wouldn't Uma need to play Eowyn for that to work? And since she looks so elven...wouldn't that be a waste? A hell, leave her out. I want Blanchet in these movies stat!
I throughly recommend the BBC radio version of lord of the rings (recorded 1981). It comes in a tweleve tape box and last for around 12 hours! It has actors such as Ian Holm, Michael Horden and Robert Stephens playing the parts and basically its great!
I hope I have your handles right in the subject heading. Sorry if I don't. Anyway, I realize this is a Lord of the Rings talkback, but perhaps Morpheus was quoting the Merchant of Venice and not Lord of the Rings. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but in that case he might be right.
Claiming that Sam is the main character, and then building the scripts around that concept, is a gross oversimplification and ends up selling Tolkien's literary skills VERY SHORT. The fact is throughout the beginning of the novel, and all the way up to the end of Fellowship, Frodo is the main character! The shift in perspective does not occur until after the "Taming of Smeagle" [probably didn't spell it right] chapter in "The Two Towers." It is obvious that the shift occurs because of Frodo's continued exposure to the ring as it nears the Cracks of Doom. Tolkien further emphasizes the alienation that Frodo feels, and the continued detachment of his character from the real world, by shifting the perspective from Frodo's to Sam's. As the ring grows in power, we need to feel more distant from Frodo in order to fully understand how it alters and changes the bearer regardless of his good will. This is an important point and a powerful literary technique. I only hope Jackson plans to make this shift in the film. But then again, he also plans on having shots of Saruman before the Hobbits reach Rivendell, so he obviously doesn't give the slightest shit about whose perspective he's using anyway! {HORRIBLE! Tolkien hides Isengard even after Merry and Pippin arrive with Treebeard. He doesn't show it to us until Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Gandalf, and Theoden arrive! As if that wasn't intentional...]
When I first read the books, the description of Strider(I didn't know he was Aragorn at the time, I thought they were two different characters) was a tall, middle-aged, lanky, road-weathered dude. The image that first popped into my mind and has never left (even thought I usually want it to) is of Sam(dammit, I can't think of his last name, tip o' the tongue and all that. He always sports a mustache, he was Cher's biker boyfriend in Mask. He was the narrator of The Big Lebowski, about a million other small roles. Auggghhh!) Anyway, if you know who I'm talking about you may now laugh at me, but no matter how I try, I can't shake the image of "Sam" in Butterbur's pub, watching the hobbits. As Stephen King once said, "The mind is a monkey". I'm inclined to believe him.
I think that's the guy you're thinking of. As in Roadhouse? The great Sawyze vehicle? Um. . . Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but he's too American, I think. But who knows, stranger things have happened.
I think Cate should be cast as the Noldorin Queen. No, not that Kate, Cate Blanchett. Or Angela Basset. Alternative, maybe, but definately possessing the power of Galadriel.
That's Sam Elliot you've got lodged in yer skull, also amazing in Tombstone. Now that would be Bizarro World casting for sure, but hey, who am I to judge? I've always had the wacky notion of using computer reconstructed stars of the past: y'know, Bogie as Aragorn, Garbo as Galadriel, that sort of thing. But then the narcotics wear off and I am sane again. Incidentally, sod the Uma/Cate debate, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME THAT THE LIV TYLER RUMOR ISN'T TRUE! OH, GODDESS, NO! If that whey-faced simpering poster child for Hollywood nepotism gets within 1800 miles of LOTR in any capacity I will weep blood.
That's not a bad image, Elliot as Aragorn. Although at this point I think he might be a bit too old. But a few years ago, I think he could have captured the rough-and-touble look of Strider at the Prancing Pony. I don't know anything about this Townshend character, but from the photo I did see, he seemed way too young and way too pretty to play the part. I wonder: are they trying to get 14 year old girls into the theatres?
I am sick and tired of rabid Tolkien fanatics defending his horrifically mangled narrative structure and, worse, suggesting that it needs to be maintained in the movie! Even if it was effective in the novel--which I'd argue it wasn't--it would be completely ineffective in cinematic form. Yes, it would be good to maintain the mystery of what happened to Gandalf during the journey to Rivendell. But we need to at least see him meeting with Saruman. We could also use that time to check in on the various events taking place throughout middle-Earth. What we do *not* need is forty fucking minutes of the Hobbits walking from point A to point B, which is how Tolkien structures it. And if the seige of the Ents is not shown because the Tolkien fanboys insisted that it would break with the novel's structure, I am going to be majorly pissed. Intentional or not, these are *major flaws* in the book. The traditional defense is that we're supposed to see everything through the eyes of the Hobbits, but doing it that way leaves us in the dark about most of the other major events of the novel; translated literally onto the screen, it would mean that important characters like Theoden and Saruman would have virtually no screen time, all for the sake of giving us *way* too much Hobbit than is dramatically neccessary. Theoden's character arc is *LAME* in the book, because we only see the end of his story, not the beginning or the middle. We don't see him at his worst, with Wormtongue reducing his kingdom to a joke. We only see him recovering. But if the problem isn't set up in advance, the solution is far from exciting. The same is true of Saruman and Denethor--we get a brief explanation of the problem, but we don't *see* it. Tolkien created this great, unfolding tale, and then hobbled it by telling it from the POV of four characters. There's no question that the Hobbits are the main characters, so why the overkill?!? At any rate, I'm delighted to see that Jackson has more narrative sense than that. He won't keep the camera on the Hobbits saying, "Wow, my feet are sore" while elsewhere people are dying.
Hey, Todd, I would say that in the end you should make that up for yourself, but I suggest reading the books first. However, beware the exaggerated praise of the more ardent Tolkien fans. It's NOT the most utterly fantastic book ever until you've actually read it and deemed it as such or not. As for these casting rumors, I say (with no malice intentioned) the more people become disilusioned at this latest adaptation of their favorite book the less whopping thumps will be heard around the world from Tolkien fans falling flat on their backs from shock once the finished product is released. Actually, this seems like it be a damned good movie, but... we all know where this is going in the end. Still, it will be amusing seeing how many folks who blindly sing Peter Jackson's praise one month will be subsequently flooding him with hate mail and death threats the next month. But, who knows, maybe Jackson can pull off the impossible, or, more miraculously, the fans will actually act unpredictably-rationally, that is.
Ok, ok, i havent been on here for an age so i missed this thing when it was fresh, but since i just spent an age readin everyone's comments i feel it would not be time well spent to move on without expressing myself... Firstly - why do ppl pick up on spelling?? its not important and anyone who tpes knows how annoying it is when u have got the flow going to stop and correct the spelling. stop whinging and looking at the trivia and start reading the frickin' good stuff. And about Uma Thurman?? I know she can act, i know she has sex appeal and i realise that she has dignity appropriate for an elf but personally - i think that she comes with way too much baggage to be taken seriously - everytime i see her i think of the avengers and batman&robin which r ok in their intended circumstance but i think that thinking of someone like this - which really cant be helped - would detract from the movie - i think we should have at least SOME fresh, unseen talent which abounds everywhere, great ppl just waiting for a break. I know when ever i read a book - i *AM* all the female characters ( being female) and i just dont feel Uma Thurmanish when i reag Galdriel's parts - i always imagined her as *old* - u know? kind of more dignified than sexy. The elves were supposed to be ethereal not sexpots!! well - my thoughts have been aired now - congratulations if u stuck with me till the end roll on the movie!
But, wait a minute! Didn't we try going through the fresh, unbeknownst actor gamut already? Recall that Townsend fellow? Recall all the complaints about his age and all? Not to say, everyone should just strap themselves in and stop commenting, but as long as everyone has taken a free license on scrutinizing this bugger, LOTR I mean, to death then I think a dash of practicallity is more than healthy every now and then. So, to the rest I say, go on. Happy nitpicking!
I used to live in Noone St. It was always lunchtime.
You have to wonder about the sanity of people who don't want Uma Thurman in the part but then suggest Julie Delpy or, ahem, Christy Turlington instead. The men in white coats are already on there way guys. Quite frankly I think they will be lucky if they get Uma Thurman for Galadriel, because it's only going to be a glorified cameo and she's not exactly struggling to find work with other classic novel adaptions at the moment with more substantial roles. Same goes for Hawke. In fact I read the other day that Hawke was about to start a six-month run on broadway. Doesn't that rule him out? It will probably be some Nancy and Neville Nobody that ends up with the parts. Just a word to those who call relentlessly for unknowns. Well that would be great in a perfect world, but you tend to find that an actor is 'unknown' for a reason. Like the aren't any good! I'm sure Peter Jackson wants to get the best actors he can for his little movie, and shock horror, that will probably be someone we've heard of.
Alright, I've read a lot of talkbacks too, and and more than the fans who really can't help being emotionally involved in this project, *I'm* "sick and tired" of all the people who are "sick and tired" of them. What do you think these things are for? My humble opinion on the matter is that we come here to talk to eachother (as in, *people*--not some vague cyber mind that sends telepathic approval for the most smartass comment--) on the basis of one, ultimately vague thing in common. Just that step seems to me to necessarily involve a great deal of openess, a kind of assumption that we're sort of related. So I have a hard time with the ones who come in with all this negativity and judgementalism, seemingly for the sole purpose of one-uping someone else. Talk about pathetic! If the people who love The Lord of the Rings got more joy out of that than out of sharing the experience of the book, these people would have no leg to stand on. I'm not even talking about the ones who come in and say "Tolkien sucks!" or "you FANBOYS (does that include me, I wonder?) are losers!" without even knowing why, and then duck out. (What exactly are the possible reasons they might have heard through the grape vine? Let's line them up. LOTR is a fantasy, involving mythical creatures and a battle between good and evil, thefore it is juvenile, impertinent to "real life," and not real literature? Sigh. Ask your Lit proffessor about that. Um, too many people love it, therefore it must be some no brain pop culture thing. Read it! People love it too much, therefore they must have little else to love. Read it! Oh, and let's not forget, "there's more to life than movies." Like literature and philosophy? Nevermind. I forgot, some people found this site through other than a Tolkien site link.) Silly butterflies (wink at Schmendrick.) No, I'm talking about people who come in with this pseudo-solemn front and pretend to give a patronizing lecture on why certain opinions are invalid, apparently for no other reason than that they are the opinions of a fan. Sorry, emotional interest has no critical application, is that it? Only grim, aloof, critique-happy film watchers understand what they're talking about? If we weren't here keeping track of how PJ brings this potentially transforming myth (personally and industrially) into the collective consciousness of the next two generations, this site would be nothing but movie propaganda, and certainly heartless. (Do these people have a passion? Why aren't they at that site?) But perhaps more importantly, I believe, quite to the contrary, that the talkbacks would show no critical merit if the posters didn't care as much about what they are talking about. Shall we line up the complaints against our comments? We don't realize that we are going to be disappointed anyway. In other words, we would embarass those who are already jaded less if we just de-sensitized right now? But you forget that the hopeful maintain the (perhaps unconscious)belief that what we concentrate our energy on is in fact affected by it somehow. We thought we wanted unknowns, then we bitched about Townsend. This is an unfair argument, because the complaints that people had with Townsend have nothing to do with the fact that he is unknown, or with his acting ability at all. We want to sacrifice an effective movie for the exact preservation of the book. The exact preservation of the book is an expectation that I have not heard anyone explicitly declare, although many have expressed the opinion that the purer the approach, the more effective the movie will be. In fact, every divergence from the book that people have complained about has been cosidered individually, and complained about with specific and thoughtful reasons for why the original worked better. Any individual complaint of the kind does not, by any rational process of thought, automatically indicate that the complainer is an absolute Tolkien purist; and being an absolute Tolkien purist no more indicates that the complainer's felings are irrational or impertinent to the field of film. Sheesh! I feel like I'm talking to some insane predjudiced sector and explaining point by point why, "yes, females *are* as intellectually competent as males!" Alright, I'm over it. Namarie to elf-friends, and hey, about the 20 questions thing: I'm sure it'll come as soon as the cast list is out, and there are other things to ask.
August 21, 1999 2:44 PM CST
by nightsir
It is simple. Thurman and Hawke are both seriously over-appreciated, whereas Burns and Graham not only are widely considered young and hot, but they also have quite a track-record with New Line Cinema (in Grahams case, "Lost in Space" and "Austin Powers 2"-NLC two biggest enterprises so far). Peter Jackson is not dumb. He knows about an actors range and must have seen, that Hawka coulnd
I love casting discussions and enjoy other peoples opinions even if they differ radically from mine. I think Uma and Ethan would be fine as would Ed and Heather or Nicole and Tom. As for other roles I'd go for Tobey Maguire as Merry, Russel Crowe for Boromir, Guy Pearce as Legolas, Tim Spall as Gimli, Catherine Zeta Jones or Jennifer Connelly as Arwen, Peta Wilson or Cate Blanchett as Eowyn, Sean Bean or Hugh Jackman as Eomer, Sean Connery as Theoden, Patrick Stewart as Saruman, Geoffrey Rush as Denethor, Mark Hamill as the voice of Gollum and Brian Blessed as the voice of Treebeard. Feel free to flame my opinions if you wish but please be nice about it and make suggestions of your own if you disagree. We should all just have fun with these discussions abusing others for their perfectly valid opinions just makes us seem shallow as does flaming actors we dont like by calling them untalented etc because lets face it they probably have 100 times the acting ability of the average person who posts on these boards even if we personally dont like their acting style.
Milady (Amalthea, who else?), thank you for another great (and timely) post. Lir would be proud. :) Well, good peoples, I hope you were paying attention. If someone expresses an opinion you disagree with, feel free to express your own, but PLEASE refrain from taking it upon yourselves to invalidate a person's right to have their thoughts and opinions taken seriously (i.e., well so-and-so is obviously just a purist so... we should discount whatever they have to say), lest I turn you into old cheese, which I crumble and scatter so... Seriously, though, let's try and distance ourselves from these needs to appear wiser and hold more esteem than one another. We're all on the same level here and should respect each other accordingly. And if you don't, Molly says that perhaps that old iron ladle she keeps over in the corner might speak more eloquently than I. Well, she always was a very pragmatic sort. Hmmm... Anyway, as to the issues at hand. Peronally, I hope that the roles of Faramir and Galadriel go to...(drum roll please...) TWO TALENTED ACTORS WE'VE NEVER HEARD OF! Why? Because dealing with well-knowns automatically begins to bring about that most horrendous phenomenon of type-casting (I never thought that miss Thurman would be a good Galadriel, but as soon as the films were announced, I knew her name would come up). Unfortunately, most of the folks normally associated with the "types" of G and F (dashing/young/handsome and beautiful/young-looking/... well, as far as female characters go, once you've covered those two traits, Hollywood pretty much makes up it's mind on who it wants right there) are succesful primarily because of their looks rather than their talent. There are, of course, exceptions (Cate Blanchett is, in my opinion, amazing... although the fact that the academy gave the BA award to Gwyneth Paltrow over her seems to me to state my point rather well), but then one must look at those very few exceptions and ask "while this person is talented, does he/she really fit the role?" I guess the real, simple statement implicit in this whole ramble is that I can't for the life of me think of any actors that I know of who would be right for these(and other) roles, so I'm hoping that PJ will find some. Oh, one other thing about typecasting... another feeling (which, to my joy, has been expressed by PJ) I have on the subject is that, with far too many stars, their own identity intrudes too much on the character. Which is to say, when I see Galadriel, I want to see Galadriel, not Uma Thurman. This has nothing to do with her ability, just the fact that hers is so much of a household face, it would detract from the identity of the character. This is the reason that I was releived that Connery, as much as I love his acting, would not be playing Gandalf. As soon as I saw him, my familiarity with the "Connery-persona" would take over and "Gandalf" would be no more than Tolkienish for "Sean." There are probably alot of people to whom that makes little or no sense, but really, I don't mind. I just enjoy giving my thoughts a good vent now and then. Hooray for message boards! Oh, one more thing before I go... If it does come down to a well-known couple taking these two roles, I stand by my statement in a previous post: MEL BROOKS AND ANNE BANCROFT ALL THE WAY!!! :) Goodnight.
It doesn'y happen much anymore, the "Spectacle" type film. You know what I mean. Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, or some of the better known DeMille epics. I mention this because of the debate over known and unknown actors. These old films often had an "All Star Cast" (as they were often advertised as having), and I don't recall Ben Hur being less of a movie becuase all the principle actors were famous. The same with Spartacus. Sometimes the story is good enough and the acting is superb enough that you don't sit through every minute of the film thinking "That's Olivier". The only time I saw a film where I DID think about the actor instead of the part he was playing was when I went to see Born On The Fourth Of July. My son played Pvt. Wilson, and naturally I only saw my son on the screen, not Pvt. Wilson. There's something to be said for having great actors in some roles. Some one else pointed out that unknown actors are unknown for a reason. And that may be true to an extent. But many unknowns have just never gotten a big break. But several of the key roles have already been cast. Some of you like them, some don't. I won't be able to tell until I see the film. What can I tell about any ones acting ability by looking at a publicity photo? Most of the actors chosen so far I haven't really seen. I don't get to the movies very often these days. That's a far cry from when I used to manage a theatre. Back then I could look at a one sheet and tell you if the movie would be any good.
I definitely see what you mean, Goodgulf. And don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say that across the board fame equals lack of ability. My main area of trepidation had to do with "young and good-looking" characters like Faramir and Galadriel. In any such roles, it seems that 99 out of ten films will go with the "babe/stud-of-the-month" rather than really concerning themselves with dramatic ability. As far as the whole typecasting issue, which for me was, in large part,a seperate issue from that of who should play Gal and Far, I'm more worried about specific actors who carry their personality with them to every role. Connery, to me, is one such actor. His manner, personality, whatever are so consistent from film to film...(one of the only exceptions I've ever seen from the standard Connery machismo is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) It gets to the point where one knows the character at seeing his face. Olivier didn't have a type because he always molded himself into his characters. He wasn't the same person from film to film. I mean, I'm thrilled with McKellan as Gandalf. He's still quite well known (although not as well-known in the States as I would have previously thought), but he's been so drastically different in the various roles I've seen him in, that I don't already have in the back (or front) of my mind a character to go with his face. I'll be the last person in the world to say that the all-star casts of the old spectacle pictures made them bad movies. Now that I think about it, though, would it be out-of-line for me to venture that the nature of today's "stars" is drastically different? As far as the major super-stars today, there seems to be a wide dividing line between the few older veterans like Nicholson, Streep, Hopkins, DeNiro and the like and the new generation of "sex-symbol" stars. And it seems that few succesful films get away without casting some of the latter, often without regard to their acting ability. This isn't to say (I've been using that phrase alot, this post)that there's no such thing as a young and attractive, talented actor... One just needs to sift through lots of very succesful young, attractive, untalented ones to find them. I'm sure I'm overgeneralizing a bit (if not a lot :) ) but I really believe that the point still, on some level, stands. Oh, congratulations on your son and Born on the 4th. That's really something to be proud of (as I'm sure you are). What an interesting assortment of folks these pages bring together...
I certainly agree with you in principle (principal?) on everything you wrote. Good acting is the key. As far as all star casts, it seems to me that under the old Studio System, where each studio had stars under contract, it was easier for them to get all their "heavyweights" in one picture every now and again. Nowadays that's impossible. First, no studio has exclusive rights to enough stars. Second, major film stars cost millions. Of course some times these stars will do a film at 'scale' salary if they think it is a great movie, or if it will help their career. From what I've heard several stars wanted to be included in LOTR very badly. Whether or not they will (or who they are) is unknown to me. And yes, Connery does carry his persona with him in most films. John Wayne had the same 'problem', but he used it to his advantage - to the point that if he did do something a bit "out of character" no one liked it. As for hiring the latest bimbo on the 'it girl' bandwagon, we can only hope that Jackson will as you say "sift" through them and pick the very best. Of if he must hire beauty over talent, then work hard to get the best performance he can, which we've sen time and time again that a good director can do. I've seen many actors who were lackluster in several films, but really shined with the right director. And I've seen films that use a talentless beauty and then dub in his/her lines using another actor. This is more common with musicals, but it has happened with dialogue. So there are several 'tricks' at the directors disposal to keep a poor performance from ruining a film up to and including firing the actor and re-shooting the scenes - though that's an expensive way to go. At any rate, I'm satisfied so far with the cast (as little as I know about most of them), and I'm more concerned that the film take the story seriously and keep the undertone of tradgedy that I feel when I read the book. If they add too many cute pieces or change the characters too much, I'll be unhappy. This refere to Arwen primarily. On the one hand she must have more screen time or the audience won't know or care why she's so important (she is Aragorn's basic stimulus for trying to unite both kingdoms) and the tragic choices she must make to marry a mortal. And despite what her perceived character is among the rest of the fans, Arwen is one of three people in Rivendell who could stand face to face with the Ringwraiths without blanching. Elrond and Glorfindel being the other two. That's why some of us don't object to Arwen meeting the Fellowship rather than Glorfindel. Would I prefer that they film the book as is? Yes. After all, that's what we all fell in love with. But we also know that some changes are going to happen. So I am prepared to like the book for one thing and the movie for something else.
Thersites - loved your post regarding Uma Thurman: "When I think of Uma Thurman I think of her role in Pulp Fiction which then mysteriously transmogrifies into an image of Galadriel snorting Coke..." Well, now we know what Galadriel's mirror was REALLY for. So why didn't Tolkien mention the Razor and Straw of Galadriel too? :)
To Schmendrick: If you want to see another exception to "the standard Connery machismo" which contains a far better performance by the man than that in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", see if you can rent a little-known Brit flick made in 1973 called "The Offence" (aka "Something Like The Truth"?) where he plays a burnt-out police detective interrogating a child molestor. But be warned - it's pretty grim viewing... I only wish old Sean could find another such performance within himself, rather than continuing his interminable run of masturbatory "starring roles" which always seem to feature the old bugger getting it on with some babe young enough to be his granddaughter. Not that I went to see "Entrapment", of course... :)