Good points,
Nogrod and
Lommy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lommy
The third point is that before we should cast the Silm, we should consider whether we'd like to have a pure fantasy tale, a legend or would we try to add some depth and make the story more human (which could ruin it; in the end, Silm's main merit is nobleness and high beauty and the feeling of a legend) and make the people look like real people.
|
Well, I 'hope' for both. Surely it should be made to look like an ancient legend, but does that exclude depth? Interesting that you say adding depth and making it more human are the same (if I understand you right). I think it would be crucial for (a) Silmarillion movie(s) to have some "Elvish depth". In the LotR-movies we barely scratched the surface of the elvish soul and way of thinking. It is a great task to make the general audience understand why these elves are so obsessed with these three little stones, and that there is much more to them than their material value.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Why Frodo is somewhat unbelievable in the films but Sam is believable? Because the first is the "poster boy" to gain the teen-audiences, and the other is the comical (fat) helper (which he is not) who actually does some real acting.
|
Frodo is unbelievable because he does not fit into his role and his acting ability, though more than decent in my mind, is not enough to compensate for that. Since the Silmarillion would take a budget of maybe more than 100 Million it can, of course, hardly be called independent. So you need some known actors/actresses in it. It's important to choose these in a way that they fit. Of course the main part of the roles will be played by more or less unknown actors. But, since nobody knows them, it's no fun to discuss about them.
Another idea:
Tommy Flanagan
Good-looking, but not in a magazine-cover way. I can imagine him as some battle-hardened Edain of Beor's or Haleth's house. Hunthor, maybe?