Thread: if we made the Tolkien Movies
I think, for one thing, I would never have a well known or seasoned actor or actress take any of the parts. And I would probably look more to those who perform on stage than hollywood actors to play the main characters.
I think that someone who is unaffected, who is natural and not jaded or stuck in a rut , a fresh face is the best for the movies. I would spend a great long time interviewing and taping those seeking the parts and I would really study them before making any choice.
I would mostly seek the talent from Wales, England, Ireland, Scotland, perhaps Norway, I just think that would be best.
How about you, what would you do
except for perhaps Faramir. Not that I have anything against Daisy, I loved him as Diver Dan, but I just don't think he suited Faramir. Not being much of a Tolkien fan I don't really have the energy to think about if I was making the movies, I feel PJ did a fairly good job. Stephen Kings IT on the other hand.......
Anyway any suggestion who could play Tom?
The only character I didn't see cast well was Denethor. I thought he should have been blond and had the long handle-bar mustache like a Viking with a slightly askew look in his eye..
and hullo to you my friends i am back
Arath,how wonderful, I am glad you are come back.
I love John Hurt, but cannot see him in anything Lord of the Rings. I would keep loEnglish king or two hanging about with him.
I just love it when a complete unknown takes a major part and the freshness and wonder of the superb acting makes everything so easy to believe.
I get very tired of actors, Hollywood ones at least, that have been about and in movies that , er, rather take away that elegance and dignity that I thik those acting in the Jrr movies should have. It is hard to explain but it is how I feel.
I never knew viggo before LOTR so that was alright for me. Oh, I cannot articulate properly about my feelings so that is all I will say.
Who do you think would be the best actor for Thorin Oakenshield or Bilbo Baggins of the Shire. I sort of wish the movies would have been in order with the Hobbit first, because then the actors would have been of course much younger and things would have run more smoothly. That is the trouble with a large body of work that flows together but one can stand alone, making the others not absolutely necessary. sigh. Perhaps our beloved Vir could play Bilbo, well a rather tallish Bilbo, perhaps he ate something and it affected his growth hormones?
Perhaps our beloved Vir could play Bilbo, well a rather tallish Bilbo, perhaps he ate something and it affected his growth hormones?
Though in temperament, I think Vir is more like a rough-voiced dwarf and less like a peace-loving Hobbit.
John Rhys Davies might be good as Thorin
Oh and bad new Sian
Gimli actor turns down role in “The Hobbit”
Beorn: Ciaran Hinds.
Bard: Richard Armitage.
They're both fairly unknown actors (like many from the LOTR films), but I think that they would suit those roles well.
A could see André the Giant (The Princess Bride) in the roll of Beorn, except I believe he has passed on.
Ciarn might do the job, he is an outstanding character actor who can really bring a character to life. I am just not sure how tall he is. And Andre the Giant who is indeed gone, like our beloved Grondy, had such back problems early on in his life that by the time he acted in the Princess Bride he had to have pulleys and such to help him in many of his scenes so he did not incapacitate himself or break his bones. And, much as I loved him, he was just too gentle and sweet and I don't think he could pull off the fierce moments Beorn had, just like a real bear.
I wouldn't say any of the actors in the LOTR movies were as high and mighty as you say Hollywood actors are. Not saying Hollywood actors aren't, I just don't think any of the LOTR characters were. None of them, other than perhaps Hugo Weaving, were near that "sell out" status. All of the ones chosen were actors who have EXTENSIVE experience, many of them actually do have theater experience, and have put out quality material in the past.
Look at it like this....if they had chosen purely new talent, taking a total risk, and they were horrible...what would that have done to the Tolkien image? Would they continue making them? Would they recast? Or just give up? They went with who they did because a) they fit the part (generally) and b) they knew they had it in them.
There were SOME relatively new faces...or at least not well known faces. Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Guy who played Gollum....LOTR is where their careers REALLY took off. Hell even Viggo made his name in LOTR. And now everybody associates the look of Frodo and Sam with who they chose because they were so perfect. I see what you're saying, but I don't think using ONLY new faces would work here.
I definitely agree Faramir wasn't cast properly. Faramir is one of my favorite LOTR characters and was sooooo underrepresented in the films. Should have made him the bad ass ranger he really was. I also don't think Liv Tyler was right for Arwen. Though I think she's cute, I don't think she captured the essence of true elven beauty that Arwen was supposed to be. I actually thought John Noble was a great Denethor. Though not particularly true to the books, he still played his part well.
I also wouldn't have mix-and-matched so many storylines. I SUPPOSE I understand why they did it, but I mean, Shelob in the ROTK? Elves in Helm's Deep? WTF?!?!
Hahahahahahaha, Gimly's John rhys Davies an unknown?? are you kidding me? I suggest you google his name mate.
Most of the actors may be unknowns to Americans but most of them are not only well known but have extensive potfolios in Britain, Australia and New Zealand where there come from.
That's fair, I guess a lot of those actors were British and didn't have much claim in the US. I never said I didn't know their names, I just said that's where their careers really took off. You are right about Davies though, for some reason I was thinking he was someone else and completely forgot about him. Probably because he didn't want to do the Hobbit, which upset me so I tried to block him out...
I'd say what I said still stands true for several of the others though. Again, not saying they hadn't been in anything good (and bad) before, but the LOTR movies were their breakout role. You could even say that for Sean Astin. Sure, he had the goonies, but then came 15 years of bad TV appearances and c- movies. Now everyone knows him as Sam because he did such a great job. That's all I'm saying. The film Industry is completely different over here, too. So, in any case, I guess I speak on behalf of American film goers.
John Rys Davies is an excellent actor.
Since he won't be a dwarf again, he could be Beorn - in fact the part is made for him since he's a big booming fellow.
John would be brilliant as Beorn, but the thing is his voice and face are so discernable, even under heavy prosthetic make up and such, that it might not go over well , since we so loved him as Gimli and Treebeard and see him as them too well.
And, in Canada, John is in fact not that well known at all. There are many who have never viewed the LOTR movies , nor anything else he is known for and who know him not.
I believe I saw in the extended version of LOTR that John Reese said not only was the stuff around the eyes painful but he felt a freak, for real and he did not want to go amongst his fellows,he felt that badly. He would instead go upon the sea in his boat, and there found solace. I think he felt sort of a leper or something.
My favourite actor is David Wenham, as he has the sight of the Faramir in the book. I mean, he has the appearance of a patient man, wise, noble, etc. I like him very much.
Nonetheless, I must say Andy Serkins is the best one. He does a great job giving life to Gollum. The voice and the movements, oh, he was like a bug creeping all the time, it must be really hard to work for the movies in such position. And finally, we can hardly recognize him on the screen. He deserves our congratulations...
Letting The Lord of the rings movie aside, which Tolkien's book you wish to watch on the screen? and if you have the chance to choose a character to play, which one would you choose?
Today I would feel very satisfied playing Eowyn in the LOTR movie, riding a horse and rising the sword against the orcs! And a book turned into a film.... I have to think about it!
Answer for the original question from this thread would not be easy for me. Probably because I saw the first movie before reading the book, and the sceneries along with the faces of the actors from the FOTR movie are kind of glued to my mind when I imagine those places and characters. What I would add? Personally - I love the Barrow-downs part in the book - it is amazingly mysterious and spine-chilling for me, and I would love to see that. Thus being said I would include Tom's Bombadil character in the Fellowship Of Thre Ring movie. I always imagine the character to have shining eyes, curly beard and a smile on his face. He is a very intriguing character for me - now, when I know much more about Middle Eart now. And that's why I can understand why his role wasn't included, this is not an easy thing to create the movie from this - very complex story - so the readers will accept it and 'non-readers' would be interested and would not feel disoriented. After the first movie I was disoriented too and I'm sure that Tom Bombadil's slight flippancy of the Ring would make me feel lost even more.
It would be hard for me to find the actor for Bombadil's role and - along with all the other people from the book - I'm sure I would not be able to choose the right person. I think Peter Jackson did an amazing job here - maybe with one little exception when it comes to Legolas (along with the acting, he had some poor lines to say). It was a brilliant idea to get those actors, who were moderately known in the world, not 'Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp' type of cast.
What I would do differently? Definitely would not mess with the facts from the book. If it was Gandalf himself (maybe with some Meriadoc's help) who guessed the password to enter Moria's Gate, I cannot understand why this was given to Frodo. If Frodo was able to pass the Bruinen by himself, I don't see why Liv Tyler as Arwen is there. (I know that her character had to be introduced somehow, but it is too big intervention into the original story for me). Definitely would not mess with the physics also. I mean all those 'surfing down the stairs' or 'tossing Gimli' kind of things. Yes, we have CGI now, and it was really helpful to create all those fantastic sceneries and creatures. But was that 'surfing' necessary to the story? It looked ridiculous!
It's quite intriguing, and I need to think about both of your questions.
Okay, I thought about filming another Tolkien's book and I must say I find it difficult to even imagine watching some of them! It's like watching a movie based on whoooooole Greek mythology for example - that's not going to happen, and it probably shouldn't.
So maybe I'll just write which stories I would find interesting to watch. First of all - Beren and Luthien. There is a problem for me though, it is the ultimate love story - I cannot see it being filmed without this cheesy Hollywood-ish element we often see in the romantic movies. I'm afraid the story would be flattened, and ripped off its complicated background and as the result we would see something really ridiculous.
Another one - the story of Turin. Amazing when read in the book. Full of darkness, mysteries... and action. Maybe this is even my number one story, because it has it all.
And another one - story of Silmarils. But I honestly don't think it should be filmed without it's background - how would we describe what the Silmarils really are without showing the Two Trees of Valinor?