Should the Movies not have been made when they were because they couldn't secure the same cast for all three?
Posted by Ibecame 8 years, 10 months ago to Ask the Gulch
In other words should the Producers have held off to some future year when enough money could have been put together to retain the cast?
I make things by hand for a living and the same principles apply here.
1) There exists a great idea.
2) There exists a creator that can bring it to life.
3) The final product can be improved upon BUT NOW WE HAVE A PATTERN!
In a mini-series however, casting continuity is crucial.
The desire to "get it done" I think ruled over "get it right" and Objectivism lost in the process. Haste does make waste.
While having different casts made the movies, to me, disjointed, and I wish there was $$$ to sign all 3 movies (at least the main characters) at the onset, they did what they had to do.
The only other complaint I had about 3 was the location for the gulch. While location shooting in Colorado (or elsewhere in the high Rockies) would have cost more, it would have added a sense of credibility that shooting on the Ranch in SoCal could not. Wrong flora, wrong climate, wrong altitude, wrong terrain. Sorry...
Again, tho, they were working with a budget that, honestly, they were lucky to pull it off. THAT was an effort that was worthy of Galt.
it might help the U.S. to continue to stand for
another decade or two. . ya think??? -- j
.
Also, no, there's no miniseries coming.
I've just started to read "The Early Ayn Rand."
Having seen all the AS flicks and The Fountainhead, I figure I should start a literary study at the beginning, so to speak.
To me, the characters were far more important than the actors who - all - did a fine job of portraying them.
Part III was extremely disappointing, from the script onward. Reardan who is key in this part of the book is all but ignored in the movie, for example. I agree that a miniseries would be a better format. Certainly the casting should should have been more consistent with the book. and it goes without saying it should be the same throughout. I would have liked to see Eddie's role in keeping Galt informed about what's happening with Dagny and the railroad. The movies and especially Part III did not reflect as much commitment and understanding of the message of the book as I would have hoped
The story and the theme are compelling and there are some hundreds of people on this site alone who, after seeing this version, know how to do it better!
The miniseries should correct the revolving cast problem.
It would have been one thing to have to switch the characters out between Part I and Part II, but to ALSO have to change them out between Part II and Part III? The lack of continuity just kills you there with the fan base, but it also hurts because the audience gets invested in a certain style of character as portrayed by a particular actor/actress. It really takes away any momentum from the previous movies to have to re-cast and re-portray key players in films.
There were two Star Wars worth watching the rest went the way of Major Leagues and Goal Part III or Too Big Too Fail. The reason was Star Wars was a western that tried to become a Walt Disney Fantasy.
for some reason I never liked Star Trek the TV series but the movies were excellent.
For alternate timeline the obvious winner and still champion is Back To the Future I, II, III and they stopped just in time.
But Baldwin? Please. His name on the marquee is a clear signal to stay home and skip the DVD
I couldn't watch "Sum of All Fears" (Ben Affleck) because there is no way Affleck is Jack Ryan. I also read about how they'd substantially changed the script from the book and decided that was too much for me so I boycotted.
I thought they cast Obi Wan well with Liam Neeson, but Hayden Christensen was a disaster in the pivotal role of Anakin Skywalker. I could get over Jar-Jar Binks (despite the racial sterotyping many were claiming) as comic relief, but I just couldn't get over Christensen's unconvincing rages or faked brooding melancholia. Robert Downey, Jr. would have been way more convincing even though I just can't see him as a Jedi.
For Star Trek, I'm just re-watching the old series on NetFlix. Though the special effects are downright cheesy in many areas, I can laugh that off due to advances in technology in movie-making. But the plots of the old Star Trek are by-and-large more convincing than many of the Next Generation, where the "particle-of-the-hour" discussions just get so old. It isn't to say that there aren't several Next Generation episodes which aren't fantastic. I liked the pilot "Encounter at Farpoint" and I liked the Data v Lore ones, but any of them where Troi was the main figure just set my teeth on edge.
As to the movies, "Wrath of Khan" still reigns supreme as far as storyline. "Undiscovered Country" was by far the worst followed closely by the Save the Whales edition. (The book follow-up was outstanding, however.) I can't point to any of the Next Generation movies as particularly inspiring to me - I preferred the two-part episodes in the mini-series better.
Regarding ST movies, hadn't you heard that the even numbered ones are good and the odd numbered ones are bad? (grin)
The Khan movie is my favorite, too, and apparently the studio agreed since they made it again in the new timeline (not as well as the original although not Cumberbatch's fault.)
I wish they had made a movie of the Mirror, Mirror episode. It was setup for one with the ending. The fan based production in Georgia did do a sequel to that episode that you should see.
http://www.startrekcontinues.com/
(Episode 3, Fairest of Them All)
STNG's collective just can't be compared to STOS' individualism.
I really liked the remake of Khan, but it still doesn't compare to the original. I think that's probably because they tried to play just a little too much on the "Sherlock" fame of Cumberbatch even though he plays the egomaniac quite convincingly. I think it was the chase scene at the end that just drew things out too far. And Ricardo Montalban really did play a most convincing Khan.
I'm with Michael J. Fox who says/ We lie for living and if we do a good job for 90 minutes the public will forgive us for lying in exchange for 90 minutes of entertainment. Sean Connery carried Baldwin as did James Earl Jones, Sam Neill Scott Glenn and the submarines. Baldwin never rose above the level of and remains to this day a bit part supporting role choice for producers who have a budget to watch.
In general, I agree with you about Baldwin's acting. But in that particular movie, he played Jack Ryan exactly how I saw him in my mind when I read Tom Clancy. Clancy describes Ryan quite distinctly both in physique and in style. I'm not arguing that Baldwin is a great actor, only that for that specific role he was a great fit. I don't take away from any of the other actors either - the character role-playing was excellent on all parts.
Trivia note: did you know that Connery wasn't who they initially wanted to play the part of Russian sub commander Marko Ramius? They only asked him when the other guy turned down the role!
Here's the imdb.com trivia: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099810/triv...
One thing I didn't know was that Harrison Ford was originally cast and turned it down! He of course changed his mind later after the movie was a smash hit.
And BTW - I did like Gates McFadden as Dr. Ryan (the wife). It's too bad she couldn't stay on due to other commitments.
I doubt you will see any more Clancy books made into movies in the current political climate. Especially the plane crash scene and the or the VP to President scenarios.
Difference between Gates, Anne and Hillary. The first two did a far better portrayal of a First Lady while Hillary has spent far more time acting.
What absolutely disgusts me about the SotU addresses is how partisan they get - especially from Democratic Presidents. It's not a bully pulpit. It's not for chastising the Supreme Court because you disagree with their decisions. It's not for lambasting your political opponents. And they shouldn't be more than about 10 minutes long.
Awesome!!! +1 for now, more if I could!
I would love to see him in a one episode reality show titled, "Bleeding and Swimming with Sharks"
Regardless of the change of actors, I appreciate the opportunity to view and to own these fine movies.
I have to admit I never really noticed the changes. By the time I could get a DVD since the movie wasn't shown where I live and wasn't in theaters on my two one day annual visits to US Norte. Acquiring the DVDs took some time and the viewings were spread out so it wasn't as noticeable. The Highlight was inviting some Latino friends over a few days ago to watch (they speak English) and the real treat was handing them a copy of AS in Spanish.
Load more comments...