|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 22, 2012 1:31:32 GMT -5
Not everyone appreciates our love for these two fandoms, sadly. Though I suspect LotR would be a bit more accepted, the main audience for it is older and the book itself is old enough that 'respectable' scientists work on it and there is a lot of secondary literature about it. So it is probably considered more seriously than HP, which in most eyes is still a children's book.
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 22, 2012 2:57:31 GMT -5
Oh. Yeah, they might. But well, that big, big project I mentioned, it's not shown to everyone. Why am I nervous for it, although it's long time left ... I suddenly want to already start to write on it, although I've got no idea how you do that. x)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 22, 2012 3:59:19 GMT -5
Maybe you are nervous because it is a big one?
Just start taking notes or something along that line, collect ideas, that might help you to get going later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by teflonbilly on Sept 22, 2012 17:20:21 GMT -5
I personally feel that most of the actors once they grew up were miscast, from a looks/body type perspective.
I'll run down the list (as I see it):
1. Dumbledore: Richard Harris, flat out, was dying when he was cast as Dumbledore. Lung cancer is usually a slow lingering death kind of cancer. So, while he was a marvelous actor, was physically and constitutionally too weak to pull off the rather vigorous and hale way Dumbledore was described in the books. Gambon was much better, and I would say overall, he might not capture looks wise what I might have thought Dumbledore looked like from the books, I think he was fine and a much better fit than Harris.
2. McGonnegal: Maggie captures the persona perfectly, but I think on balance she was too old in appearance. They needed an actress in her 50s. Maggie smith in her own right is almost as old as McGonnegal was in character. And considering, at least from the books, Wizards and Witches don't age as quickly as muggles, she needed to be a little more spry than Maggie could pull off. That being said, I am drawing an almost complete blank on who would have done the part justice other than Maggie. So I would not have changed this casting at all. I'm just pointing out where I see the casting director got the physical aspect wrong.
3. Harry Potter: What some of you said, Daniel physically matched the part perfectly when he was in PS/SS and in CoS. After that he was too short, and too squat physically. I pegged Harry as ending up being 5'10" when fully grown, Daniel is almost a midget in my book at 5'5"
4. Hermione: Emma is way too cute. Hermione's hair needed to have been made way more bushy from the beginning (not dirty looking like they made it in PS/SS) Physically/body type I think Emma is an ok match. It's just in the face that her attractiveness shines through a little much. Harry didn't notice that Hermione was a rather attractive girl until the Yule Ball when she was all done up, so the actress needs to be someone that it takes make-up and well groomed hair to actually pull out her beauty, whereas Emma probably would look cute in a burlap sack.
5. Ron: Rupert gets the persona ok, (not sure about the accent, I'd have to ask a native to tell me if he is speaking in a modern Devonshire accent) But his hair was not red enough, and he is no where near tall enough. Ok, ladies, here is a big clue 6' or less is not a tall height for a man. And to describe a man has having Tall as a proper quality, a guy really needs to be in the 6'3" to 6'4". More than that and you move into "very tall" to "towering"
I know this is not very exact, but I find it laughable when I'm reading a fic and Hermione is gushing over how tall Ron is and then she describes him as being 5'11". For Ron to be described as tall as often enough as he is in the books, and still keep him in a "normal" range I'd put Ron as ending up as 6'4" and consequently the tallest of the Weasley boys, just because the novelty of the youngest being the tallest is amusing.
6. Fred & George: Persona, great, they hit the needling teasing down perfectly. But 1. hair not red enough, 2. they are too tall and thin. The twins are supposed to be squat and thickly muscled (i.e. beaters build) Charlie being the same way, and probably the most muscular of the brothers.
7. Ginny: Bonnie might be a great girl, but overall she is the most miscast of the whole lot. Her dialogue was awful (I blame the director) but as I'm discussing physical aspects: she is/was too willowy and thing; her hair is absolutely not red enough (seriously, was it impossible for the make-up department to get all of the Weasleys to have matching intense FLAMING RED hair? Not orange, not strawberry blong, but fscking red.)
From the books I frankly saw Ginny as being short, growing quickly into being well developed, but very athletic in build (i.e. well developed back and shoulder, and nice legs, but all in a very womanly curvy way.) She's a girl that grew up around 6 older brothers, she is going to have a lot of tom-boyish qualities by default so I think extremely athletic and well put together physically from the excercise is one of the consequences I imagined.
TB
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 23, 2012 4:59:23 GMT -5
Oh, miscast yes. I like Emma Watson. I think it's great that she's making a career. But she was, as teflonbilly, said way to cute and adorable, and as she got older, just more beautiful. They didn't even bother to do something about her hair, except from the first two movies, and it wasn't even correct then, but it was better than the hair in the other movies, no matter how I loved it. But, well, it's a movie. They almost never choose anything less than pretty girls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 23, 2012 5:08:16 GMT -5
which is sad, really - you can't expect everyone to look pretty, after all. Besides, my definition of pretty is often not even the same as theirs anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Sept 23, 2012 6:48:39 GMT -5
I agree that quite a few of them were miscast.
I had some thoughts of my own about who could have played various characters, but I don't know whether they would have been better or not.
1)Dumbledore - Sir Ian McKellen or Sir Patrick Stewart.
2)McGonagall - Dame Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep
3)Lucius Malfoy - Jeremy Irons or Daniel Craig
4)Severus Snape - Jeremy Irons or Liam Neeson
5)Flitwick - Ronnie Corbett
6)Narcissa Malfoy - Nicole Kidman or Samantha Womack
I can't think of any others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 23, 2012 7:52:20 GMT -5
No, no, not Sir Ian. While he would probably make a great Dumbledore, for me he is Gandalf, and I don't want Dumbledore mixed up with my favourite Maia!
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 23, 2012 7:57:47 GMT -5
I think it would be to annoying if LotR and HP actors got mixed there. One is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Sept 24, 2012 9:40:54 GMT -5
I thought Dan was the perfect Harry he captured him perfectly with his acting. And it would have been reverse discrimination to fire the cast as they grew up just because they turned out to be good looking people. And really does it matter what they look like if the acting is good.
Oh and teflonbilly, Dan is 5'8. He was 5'5 when they were making GoF but he got taller.
|
|
|
|
Post by unbeastly on Sept 24, 2012 10:27:36 GMT -5
Yes they weren't perfect matches as they grew but I honestly prefer that they kept the same actors than repeatedly change them throughout the series. It's extremely annoying when they do that as you spent a good chunk of the of the film wondering who the hell all the strange actors are supposed to be.
|
|
