June 14, 2001
Reply to RingGirl
I have to agree in part with the comment that the hobbits
(and other characters--don't get me started) might have been better cast.
No offense, but you're criminally insane, right? If I may
enlighten you: you are one of the only individuals I have encountered throughout all my
travels that is dismayed with the casting. The casting is SUPERB! Simply superb. How can
you make such a blanket statement and then leave it like that. I don't know who in all the
world you thought would be better -- but the rest of the world disagrees.
My fears that the computerized shrinking would look fake were realized. The image looks
like just that--two images of different proportions superimposed on one another. Not only
is the overall height of the character diminished, which would be spendid if it stopped at
that--but their hands, feet, and especially their heads look much too small compared to
the other people in the picture.
Huh? So you wanted little bodies, with big heads and hands? Um... that's not what Tolkien
had in mind. The hobbits are supposed to be smaller in every detail -- hands and heads
included! That's one of the main reasons Jackson was using normal-sized actors and not
dwarves. As for it looking "fake" -- how so? Why don't you give some kind of
example to support your statement? Once again, everyone who has seen more then 4 minutes
of footage total has said that the scaling of the characters works extraordinarily well.
Obviously your fears were unfounded.
While hobbits may have been described by Tolkien as being perfectly proportioned little
people half the size of humans, I'm sure he did not mean their heads were only half the
size of human heads as well! This frame looks very odd to me in the trailer, and makes.
You DO realize that this statement makes no sense, right? Reread it... you're
essentially contradicting yourself.
P.J is obviously wanting star appeal before anything else, not that star appeal is
always bad; but in this case, the group of people who would by far be the most
appreciative of this movie must take their lumps and defer to the greater popular culture:
those who will only be drawn to the movie (supposedly) if Liv Tyler gets third billing.
Star appeal? STAR APPEAL? Oh yes... I suppose I forgot the massive "star
appeal" of Viggo Mortensen, Dominic Monaghan, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis,
Billy Boyd, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Bean, and Orlando Bloom. These people are not household
names. Do you even know what "star appeal" means? These people were chosen for
there acting ability, not for their supposed "star appeal" which doesn't exist.
And how about Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn? While many of us are vehemently objecting to
Liv Tyler as Arwen because she's too young and too hip (and seemingly not quite
intelligent enough--forgive me Liv--for the introspective Arwen), how can we reconcile the
very pretty, very young Mortenson as the grim ranger who has "had a hard life and a
long"? Like his noble lady, Aragorn is not young; additionally, nor is he much to
look at. The richness and the depth of the story will suffer somewhat with the casting of
such young, less dimensional actors as Tyler and Mortenson.
Your kidding me, right? You've GOT to be kidding me. Once again, you are among the
smallest minority I've ever seen. Mortensen looks pretty? Have you even seen the movie
stills? And do you know how old Mortensen is? He is by no means "young" I'll
tell you that much. Truly, I can't even spend more time on this. You are a tiny, tiny,
tiny minority -- probably one of those people who is displeased with everything concerning
these films and so you pick one thing and rants about it. Get over it. You are wrong.
And while I'm on a role, I just want to add that if P.J. truly felt he had to go with a
young, non-British heroine, why not put one where it would count? Eowyn's steely defiance
and warrior-saavy might have been served well by someone other than Miranda Otto, who at
thirty-something hardly seems to fit the bill as the impressionable maiden who has a
girlish crush on Aragron. Leelee Sobieski would have been my choice, while Madelyn Stowe
(or someone Madelyn Stow-ish) or an un-pregant Catherine Zeta-Jones or even a Sophie
Marceau (insert almost any name other than Liv Tyler) would have made a far superior
Arwen. Ok, if we have to go with a pretty face for Aragron, I would vote for Liam
Neeson--at least he's got a bit of age on his side. Nevertheless, ultimately, I would have
voted for a cast of unknowns, but who has ever heard of such a preposterous thing? I must
concede it's all about the Benjamins; who am I to say anything about it? We all have to
make a living in the end.
I find this paragraph humorous. You go through a list of well-known actors who might
contain *gasp* a great deal of "star appeal" -- and then recant and declare you
would cast unknowns. That's funny. What's funnier is that you don't agree with Jackson's
casting -- which is comprised mostly of either A) Excellent actors who are well-known
amonst their circles, or B) Complete and utter unknowns who impressed Jackson so much that
he cast them.
Where was your argument again? I guess you're just another one of those people who feel a
need to trash the adaptation. You're in the minority -- your arguments don't stand up to
even a slight breeze.