posted
Liam Neeson is for sure the voice of Aslan? That'll take some getting used to.
I'm interested to see how exactly things have been changed. In a way, Adamson has the opposite problem that Jackson had. Jackson's source material was so huge he had to cut out large emounts, which angered fans. Adamson's material is much smaller, so he must expand scenes to flesh out characters, which also risks angering purist fans.
In the end, Jackson was celebrated as a cinematic hero by the majority. I wonder how Adamson will be received.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say go for the deeper tone, like Sean Connery or James Earl Jones...how cool would that be, Darth Aslan?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just hearing James Earl Jones act concerned for Padme in Ep III was more than enough to convince me that he can't be tender enough for Aslan.
Neeson, IMO, is an excellent choice, if not the best flat out.
Lyrhawn, that is an interesting comparison... but he may not need to add too much, remember Jackson ended up with 3-3.5 hrs per book and Adamson really only needs to fill out 90-120 mins.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a moot point, SW. Neeson's lines have already been recorded.
And I don't think Sean Connery is right for Aslan at all.
As far as JEJ goes...nah. He did "Mufsasa". That doesn't mean he's perfect for every other kingly lion role.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a stunning article. Both the kids & the witch look perfect for the parts, and the interview with the director was anything but discouraging. Can't wait -- this will be a good one.
(Geez, I never thought I'd see speculative fiction go so mainstream. Not the good stuff -- LOTR, Narnia, and now Potter. Wow.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Liam Neeson is for sure the voice of Aslan? That'll take some getting used to.
I'm interested to see how exactly things have been changed. In a way, Adamson has the opposite problem that Jackson had. Jackson's source material was so huge he had to cut out large emounts, which angered fans. Adamson's material is much smaller, so he must expand scenes to flesh out characters, which also risks angering purist fans.
Very good point, you can read the LW&W in a day. Lewis left a lot up to the imagination. He doesn't really describe many of the creatures, or battle scenes in much detail. So Adamson will have room to play. As long as he doesn’t go crazy with the story, the biggest problem people may have is the “that is not how I thought the Beavers looked” factor. From everything I’ve seen it sounds like they are trying to remain loyal to the book.
I think for once I may like the movie better than the book. I always thought Lewis sounded like a really smart man talking down to little children in the Narnia books. (which he was) I am re-reading the Hobbit for the first time since middle school and Tolkien does the same thing in it. His tone is completely different from LOTR.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is because The Hobbit is less epic than LOTR. It's not about saving all of Middle Earth, or defeating the greatest evil ever, or of Elf Princes and Kings of Men. It's about a Hobbit, simple but brave, and a band of selfish dwarves.
quote:Lyrhawn, that is an interesting comparison... but he may not need to add too much, remember Jackson ended up with 3-3.5 hrs per book and Adamson really only needs to fill out 90-120 mins
Very true, the movie itself will be shorter. Does anyone know what the run time of LWW is expected to be? 120 minutes is still only what, maybe 70 minutes shorter than the movie run times of the LOTR movies. Consider: Return of the King is what, 330 pages long? And I think it was the shortest of the three. My version of LWW is about 90 pages long (big pages, larger print, I think it equals out). LOTR is three times longer, but only cinematically 50% or so longer than LWW will probably be.
However, considering the massive amount of LOTR that was left out of the movie, perhaps the shorter the book the better. Adamson will have just enough material to create the world and then a little wriggle room. He has room for every detail that is important, and thensome. But as someone else mentioned, Lewis left much of the descriptions up to the imagination, whereas Tolkien described them in great detail, giving Jackson much more of a framework to base his creations off of. Adamson will fall under more "that's not what I thought it'd look like" scrutiny.
I'm keeping an open mind. My only issue will be Liam Neeson as Aslan. When I see a CGI character, I want to see it, (in this case Aslan), and go, "Ah, yes, THAT is Aslan." I don't want to look at it and go, "Ah yes, THAT is Qui-Gon."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern with Neeson is that his voice can be exceedingly, velvetly, gentle, but can it be powerful and frightening as well? Maybe it can be, I just don't think I've heard it. Yet.
I will hope for the best. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying he is a fantastic actor, but voice acting is different than live action acting. Liam Neeson is a fantastic actor, capable of a thousand different roles, but he isn't Robin Williams, I don't think he is capable of a thousand different VOICES.
He might nail everything about Aslan, and it could come off great, but if all I hear is Qui-Gon or Ra's al Ghul, then it'll detract from the experience. I won't be wowed by Aslan, I'll have images of other characters in my head.
I'm holding out hope. I'm not insulting his acting, but his voice is extremely distinctive, in the same way that Tim Curry and John Cleese are readily identifiable in the Valiant trailer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
