|
|
|
This article is riddled with my negative and positive feelings from hatred and sarcasm, to sincere, genuine agreements. When negative, I try to remain constructive.
I’m not expecting them to ever read this. (Not that I minded if they did but I don't think they will. The topic is way too old.) Basically I mean this to just anyone who's interested (and maybe targetted at those who adore this film and think they could not have done better.)
I am writing this article as 1. a passionate Anne Rice fan, 2. as a passionate artist and 3. as a movie buff. I had to write this 'cause I wasn't able to just calmly read their FAQ. I think you come to see why. I first took an overall glance and then began to read from word to word and I wrote this as I read it. So this's a genuine reaction - but I did take a deep breath every so often and rephrased myself. If I didn't, there would be tons of more capslock-ons and swear words. :D Excuse some of us true Anne Rice fans for being very much like ticking time bombs with this depth of an insult in our hands and this dude isn't exactly making it any better with his reasonings.
|
|
|
|
|
The points I'm going to argue / comment on:
X How his performance as Lestat / any character supposedly sucks.
X He didin't even read the books when he took the role of Lestat.
X How he in the first place took such a crappy role in a crappy script.
X Being drunk on the set / made up accent and bragging about them.
X He supposedly acted surprised twice for the same reason in the film.
Now, when you put all that in that way and even leave it at that - sure as hell it sounds downright ridiculous and awful. But why don't we take a deeper look at all that? I know I will, you're always free to ignore and if you do choose to give the following a thought - you're always of course free to have and keep your own opinion. AND please do take notice that I am not trying to make him look like the best actor ever or justify his obviously stupid attitudes with the whole drinking thing... I'm simply trying to open people's eyes that there's more to everything than those arguments imply and that thus none of the above has to make Townsend into the worst actor in the world either.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it'd hurt to publish this matter as an article too... Seeing to how blind so many people are to this in the name of "It didn't go like that in the books!!!" So, let us look into the books to see if it might make sense.
But before that - let me explain:
In the film; The producer of the film in F.A.Q at Warner Bros's QOTD site:
"Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view.”
I know! I agree. It really does.
”We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute.”
I was really surprised to read all that after I'd spent a lot of time analysing how it indeed does work extremely well for the chatacters and how Marius indeed is a terrific substitute, if looked into the books, while I was in the impression that they just thought about saving minutes.
|
|
Invite friend
Join this Club
write article
