|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arwentaurielitaril
Registered User
May 11, 6:21am
Post #1 of 19
(907 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Preserve the Mystique of Middle-earth: Cast a Fresh Face for Arwen in 'The Hunt for Gollum
|
Can't Post
|
|
Arwen Undómiel is an ethereal symbol of hope and immortality. To honor J.R.R. Tolkien’s vision and the legacy of the original films, we need an actress who can embody her timeless, otherworldly grace without the distraction of a pre-existing superstar persona. While we respect Anya Taylor-Joy’s talent, Hollywood’s recent trend of casting the same few 'blockbuster' faces in every major IP is breaking the immersion. We call for an end to this 'copy-paste' casting culture. Middle-earth was built on the discovery of new stars. We urge Warner Bros. and Andy Serkis to give a breakthrough opportunity to a talented newcomer who can truly 'become' Arwen. In other words, please do not make Seren and Arwen into the exact same character. We don't want to see a celebrity playing Arwen; we want to see Arwen herself.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
May 11, 4:17pm
Post #2 of 19
(879 views)
Shortcut
|
We?
I'll get right on that for you.
Anya is a bit ethereal herself and seems to me a decent cast if Liv is no longer viable or available for the part.
"Hollywood" is in decline for reasons they refuse to admit to themselves. You won't have to worry much longer.
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
May 12, 7:41am
Post #4 of 19
(859 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's unclear that "Seren" is Arwen
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So we might be getting ahead of ourselves. Plus, all we know is Anya circled the "Seren" role at one point: there may have been any number of other candidates in the wings we hadn't heard of.
Personally, just because they recast Aragorn I don't think they should or would open the recast floodgates. They HAD to have an Aragorn in this film, but Arwen? My bet is they'll sooner write around her than recast the role.
Also, Lord of the Rings did have big stars in minor roles: in The Lord of the Rings, it was actuallly...Arwen herself, with Liv being by far the biggest marquee name on the cast. I don't think its a bad approach: it's the David Lean style where most of the roles are taken by British character actors, and one or two are taken by matinee names. That just adds to the "event-ness" of the thing.
None of the other parts in the casting calls were codenames: that's more of an Amazon thing anyway.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on May 12, 7:42am)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
May 12, 1:25pm
Post #5 of 19
(853 views)
Shortcut
|
...Liv being by far the biggest marquee name on the cast.
You'll have to defend "by far" against the likes of Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, and Cate Blanchett who was already an Oscar-nominated actress at the time. The rest of the main cast had more credits than Liv's 16 credits (IMDB) prior to LOTR, and three of those for Daddy's Aerosmith.
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
May 12, 3:32pm
Post #6 of 19
(850 views)
Shortcut
|
The other actors you mention were respectable CHARACTER actors: but they weren't bankable. People wouldn't have said in 2001 "Let's go see that 'Lord of the Rings' movie, IAN MCKELLEN is in it."
Peter's two biographies go into some detail about how they mentioned to the studio that they thought Liv Tyler could be a good Arwen and how suddenly it became very important to have her in the movie. She was seen as a good substitute for not having managed to entice Sean Connery to join the movie: she was THAT famous, both in the US and especially in Japan. There was even a newspaper article that militated against casting her in much the same spirit that the OP does here: because she was TOO famous.
Notice, too, how prominent she is on the posters and in the trailers - and how high she's billed - in spite of how small her role is. Again, the biographies go into some detail, too, towards how much they tried to accomodate her, being that she was a celebrity of some repute. For instance, when they replaced Stuart Townsend, it was a real worry about whether she'd get along with Viggo and they had to call her and see that its fine by her.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on May 12, 3:34pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
May 12, 7:30pm
Post #7 of 19
(835 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that most of the known actors in LotR were considered character actors rather than big stars and that Tyler was probably the most famous at that point in time, essentially as a starlet. That is not to denigrate Tyler; she did fine.
Since I didn’t know who Anya Taylor-Joy was, I’m indifferent to her casting, or not. After looking her up, it seems to me that she is just about as famous as Tyler was back in the day, maybe with more acting chops.
I kind of think that Arwen could be a fairly major character in this film because I would expect that it will feature the story of Arwen and Aragorn in some form of fashion. A built-in canon romance. I’m hoping that the movie will be about more than just the actual hunt for Gollum.
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 12, 7:53pm
Post #8 of 19
(832 views)
Shortcut
|
I kind of think that Arwen could be a fairly major character in this film because I would expect that it will feature the story of Arwen and Aragorn in some form of fashion. A built-in canon romance. I’m hoping that the movie will be about more than just the actual hunt for Gollum.
Arwen's role (if any) might depend on how far back the film is going to go into Aragorn's backstory. The major events in the history of Aragorn and Arwen are canonically covered well before Gandalf recruits the Ranger in the search for Gollum, from shortly after Aragorn turns 20 to the same year that he (as Thorongil) leaves the service of the Steward Ecthelion of Gondor (Third Age 2951 to 2980). Of course, the film could take liberties with the timeline even beyond what would be appropriate due to the time compression we saw in the previous movies.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Jenny Blake Isabella
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 12, 7:57pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
May 13, 12:56pm
Post #9 of 19
(810 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There essentially are no "movie stars" anymore
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Anya had been in some popular films and won some acclaim, but I'm wholly unsure she's really a star in the old-fashioned sense. People like Tom Cruise (of the old guard) and Sydney Sweeney (from the "new" guard) can still bring an audience to the theatre, but even that really depends on the project.
I actually would enjoy Anya in the context of Tolkien. She's done plenty of period movies (essentially my yardstick for "does this actor feel right for Middle-earth" which is ostensibly a Medieval-set movie-series) and she's part British and can do a convincing accent. Adding a pinch of star power - also via the brilliant Kate Winslet - is not a bad thing.
But I really think we're jumping to conclusions (1) assuming Arwen should or would be in this and (2) that the part that Anya was up for was indeed Arwen and she had indeed signed-up for it. Neither of these assumptions are particularly supported by...anything, really.
I think that they'd sooner write Arwen out than to recast her. Aragorn they couldn't write around, obviously. But Arwen? In a GOLLUM MOVIE? Definitely possible. I also find it hard to believe they'd cast an actress with such a unique - and not terribly Tyler-ish - physiognomy as a version of the same character that Tyler played. I mean, you look at their new Aragorn and, depending on the picture, he can look VERY Viggo-ish. Anya? I dunno.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on May 13, 1:04pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 16, 1:35pm
Post #10 of 19
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
Arwen Undómiel is an ethereal symbol of hope and immortality. To honor J.R.R. Tolkien’s vision and the legacy of the original films, we need an actress who can embody her timeless, otherworldly grace without the distraction of a pre-existing superstar persona. While we respect Anya Taylor-Joy’s talent, Hollywood’s recent trend of casting the same few 'blockbuster' faces in every major IP is breaking the immersion. We call for an end to this 'copy-paste' casting culture. Middle-earth was built on the discovery of new stars. We urge Warner Bros. and Andy Serkis to give a breakthrough opportunity to a talented newcomer who can truly 'become' Arwen. In other words, please do not make Seren and Arwen into the exact same character. We don't want to see a celebrity playing Arwen; we want to see Arwen herself.
Of course we do not know whether Arwen will appear at all in The Hunt for Gollum, much less who would be cast for her. I do half-expect both King Elessar and Queen Arwen to cameo at the end of the Stephen Colbert project Shadow of the Past, with Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler reprising their roles as the Fourth Age rulers of the Reunited Kingdom.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Jenny Blake Isabella
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 16, 1:36pm)
|
|
|
Fichtenbrenner
Nevrast
Mon, 12:16am
Post #11 of 19
(351 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not really enjoying it to criticize anyone's looks, but it seems that she had a "buccal fat removal", which gave her a "starving appearance". I don't find that is appropriate for Arwen.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Mon, 5:05am
Post #12 of 19
(316 views)
Shortcut
|
"I shouldn't say this, but..." does actually say it. Just sayin'.
"The Dark Crystal" (1982) Gelfling puppets had a very interesting look. Ever since then, it's seems to have become a model aesthetic. It's curiously attractive... Juice Newton's long hair, for another example, on her titular album cover from 1981, frames her face into a triangular shape that's quite cute.
Actors generally look way better (and human) in comfortable real life, and in movies too, than all made up for glam photo shoots and public appearances, in my opinion. Make-up can play significant tricks with shadow. Maybe reserve such observations for the show.
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Mon, 5:09am)
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Mon, 1:44pm
Post #13 of 19
(218 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps my "take" is unpopular
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think if we're going to keep making Middle Earth movies (and God knows we can't stop them) then we should be RE-CASTING everyone. Let's not stop there. Let's re-imagine the music, the sets, the design, the costumes, etc. What an opportunity to let a new artist into the sandbox.
Insisting on consistency in casting, design etc only benefits the money-makers. It never satisfies fans (we can't be satisfied either way) and it leads just to more and more diminishing returns.
Even the new Potter show seems stuck in the past in this regard. I get it - why reinvent the wheel when the wheel makes billions of dollars.
But it's so tired.
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
Tue, 9:45pm
Post #14 of 19
(44 views)
Shortcut
|
The new Potter show is a complete retelling of the entire piece. This is not the case with Lord of the Rings: this is just another entry INTO PETER JACKSON'S AND NEW LINE CINEMA'S FILM SERIES.
Ultimately, there are four options with Tolkien adaptations:
1. Make a completely new and fresh take on the material (well, or almost completely new: the occasional homage is surely permissible)
2. Make another entry into the existing film series;
3. Make something "in between" the above two (this option naturally exists on a sliding scale)
4. Not make anything.
You're advocating for option [1] which is fine but which at present is NOT A COMMERCIAL REALITY, at least in film and television. In reality, the only projects in the works are more films from Peter Jackson (so, [2]) and Rings of Power which is decidedly in camp [3].
If the only realistic choice is between another "Peter Jackson" film and something that's a hollow imitation thereof, I know which one I'm picking. Why half-measures? And, if you're making a Peter Jackson film, then you need to respect the legacy of the piece, continuity not being a polite ask, but an imperative prerequisite.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Tue, 9:47pm)
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
11:41am
Post #15 of 19
(23 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with you for the most part. Certainly I agree that those are our options.
I suppose I'm advocating for Jackson letting go. If I had a genie and three wishes, I would have wanted Jacskson to let go at the Return of the King Oscar party.
I would have had Del Toro bring his unique style, design and point of view for The Hobbit film(s) and then would have advocated for either waiting 20 years and letting some new artist make The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings or just have everyone stop making Tolkien altogether and go do something else.
In the world we ACTUALLY live in, however - I agree that continuity is probably the best course to take. It just feels like there's nothing left here but diminishing returns. It feels sad and depressing to see them keep going to the well until it's dry.
(As a fan of Rings of Power, I still agree with you that they are still not making anything NEW. The more tethered to Jackson they are the weaker they are. I wish they had been allowed to really let their creative imaginations go where they wanted. I'd love to see a fresh approach!)
(As I type this I realize that what I'm really railing against is the soul-less corporatization of it all. This kind of "IP" continuity is driven mostly by shareholders and executives who want "fans" and/or "merch-buyers" to recognize the brand, and the music, and the designs and the characters so they have a built in market place. New visions = new risks = potentially less profits or *gasp* maybe even losing money and so they'd rather chase pale copies of copies then take the chance of losing money. Ironically - this also inevitably loses money. Alas...)
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
(This post was edited by Junesong on 11:42am)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
11:55am
Post #16 of 19
(20 views)
Shortcut
|
I would have had Del Toro bring his unique style, design and point of view for The Hobbit film(s) and then would have advocated for either waiting 20 years and letting some new artist make The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings or just have everyone stop making Tolkien altogether and go do something else.
I think it's easy to idealize versions of films that hand't gotten made, because the only place they really live is in our imagination and therefore we gussy them up.
The fact of the matter is that everything I've seen from how del Toro's film was going to look seemed all wrong. An Elvenking with Hena tattooes? Painted-over skies? A Giger-esque Goblintown? That could have worked for a version of The Hobbit, but not for one that was going to be (as is often forgotten now) produced and written by Peter Jackson, cast using his returning cast members, and photographed in many of the same locations. And SINCE Peter was scripting it, any issues people have with how those films are scripted, from the inclusion of Tauriel to Azog or whatever, would have largely held true to del Toro's version, anyway.
I know Peter's a big believer in fate, and I think in that sense he was FATED to direct those films just like he directed Lord of the Rings, and we're ultimately better - not worse off - for him having ended up doing so. The only reason people can't see that is that they idealize an unmmade version of a film without having actually done the homework as to what it would have been like.
As I type this I realize that what I'm really railing against is the soul-less corporatization of it all. This kind of "IP" continuity is driven mostly by shareholders and executives who want "fans" and/or "merch-buyers" to recognize the brand, and the music, and the designs and the characters so they have a built in market place.
I actually don't see it like that at all. Well, notwithstanding stuff like Rings of Power which - certainly an audiovisual standpoint - is an imitation. Pretty hard not to look at that as a...instead of cynical lets say "calculated" commercial move.
But from the standpoint of Peter's oeuvre? I guess the fact that all of these films and their subject matter were INITIATED by the filmmakers - The Hunt for Gollum especially has its roots as far back as 1997 - I see it simply as a very extended vision. Certainly, the fact that it's not just the same director but so many of the same collaborators, to me at least takes it away from the realm of "IP" and into the realm of...you know...just a film series. Whose to say a film series need not go beyond three or five or whatever arbitrary number of entries? Ultimately, there's story material there, and there are chances for new things visually, aurally, conceptually and so forth: that's enough for me, at least.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on 11:58am)
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
12:00pm
Post #17 of 19
(18 views)
Shortcut
|
I appreciate your healthy dose of perspective. You're right. The Del Toro Hobbit movie I'm imagining in my head is likely way better than anything that could or would have happened in reality. And I suppose anything creatively driven is a good thing - and Jackson, Walsh and Boyens certainly seem to have more Middle Earth stories they want to tell.
At the end of the day I'm just out here online expressing the same things fans always express - fear, longing, a wildly misplaced sense of certainty.
Whatever happens I'm sure to watch what they make.
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
Chen G.
Mithlond
12:06pm
Post #18 of 19
(16 views)
Shortcut
|
The point I was making was one made by Andy Serkis. During pickups for Tintin he was asked to meet Guillermo, who naturally wanted him back as Gollum (he also aired the idea that he'd double as the Great Goblin which already is a little fishy to me: yes, Rhys-Davies did that with Treebeard but there are very few scenes where we cut back between his two roles whereas here...).
Guillermo showed him some of the visual work he was drumming up and Andy, reflecting on it years later, said "I love Guillermo's films: I think he's a brilliant filmmaker. But to redesign it in such a way that made you feel there was no continuity? The audience would have probably felt cheated."
One of the things that makes me feel Andy is right for this task.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on 12:07pm)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
30 mins ago
Post #19 of 19
(3 views)
Shortcut
|
It just feels like there's nothing left here but diminishing returns. It feels sad and depressing to see them keep going to the well until it's dry.
That's how rights retainment works. You almost touch on it with "soul-less corporatization" and "IP continuity" but thought I should bring up the word: Rights - use it or lose it.
|
|
|
|
|
