Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbn
Why is he 'more suited to Tom'? Because his previous roles have been 'less serious'? A good actor's strength is in being able to handle different types of roles, and Blessed, I think, has enough experience to do a serous role. For example take Ben Kingsley who played both a saint(Gandhi) and a great sinner(Don Logan in 'City of God') amazingly well.
I'm tired of hearing this 'typecast' nonsense. How the public percieves an actor doesn't affect his performance. I repeat, A good actor's strength is in being able to handle different types of roles. And in my opinion anybody who sees an ctor in a film who's previously played a memorable role and sees ONLY those earlier roles throughout the film isn't really paying attention to the film at all.
|
I know full well that Brian Blessed can do all kinds of roles, I've seen 'em
I simply think he would be altogether too obvious for Beorn, a character who I think deserves some more subtle casting as his is a subtle and intriguing character.
And typecasting is important in this context as it will be an ensemble cast in an ensemble piece. Someone like Alan Rickman could play any role very similar to those he has already notably played and get away with it were he to have the whole film in which to develop that role. But he wouldn't in The Hobbit so it would stick out like a sore thumb.
And besides, Richard Wilson would be the better Smaug anyway.
And the endless "I don't belieeeeve it!" jokes that would follow would be good fodder for Crazy Captions...