Rowan Atkinson to play Voldemort?
Rowan Atkinson has been cast to play Voldemort in the 4th Harry Potter movie.
According to the Sun anyway. Can't really see him as an evil character, or really as a serious actor at all. (Also, theres a pic of hermione in the article.) |
03:17am 08/01/04 Permalink
I do hope that rowan get's out of his slump and makes a turn around from this movie. His comedic ability has been overshadowed by lesser non-talented fools.
Nf, you f***** pedo she is 14...that is very very sad. |
03:23am 08/01/04 Permalink
put the b**** on lay-buy then :P
j/k |
03:25am 08/01/04 Permalink
hmm, me either. ever since black adder and mr bean. I can't picture rowan atkinson as a serious actor. More than that, I can't stand mr bean, nor most of his movies/shows he's done.
|
03:28am 08/01/04 Permalink
(Also, theres a pic of hermione in the article.) Beware, Khel is about to jizz all over his screen. |
03:32am 08/01/04 Permalink
Can't really see him as an evil character, or really as a serious actor at all.*cough* Black Adder, and Harry Potter isn't a serious movie. |
03:35am 08/01/04 Permalink
I think you'll find black adder wasn't an evil character, just a bastard. And the Harry Potter movies aren't exactly comedies. Theres certainly nothing comic about Voldemort.
|
03:39am 08/01/04 Permalink
It's a "Jump to Conclusions Mat"! You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO! hahaha :D Well at least they are doing a 4th movie. But all i can say is that he better be f***** good at it.... |
08:46am 08/01/04 Permalink
I haven't read a book and I haven't seen a movie and surprisingly I don't give a s***. I think they are a sick cult because everyone I know who has read a book or seen a movie is obsessed.
Don't give me that crap about it being good, it is a cult and they are recruiting people.....run!!!! Run while you can |
08:49am 08/01/04 Permalink
Also, theres a pic of hermione in the article. Shes gonna be a real hawtie once she matures a bit. I mean, shes pretty hawt now, but you can't say that, cos then you feel dirty and wrong. I haven't read a book and I haven't seen a movie and surprisingly I don't give a s***. I think they are a sick cult because everyone I know who has read a book or seen a movie is obsessed. I was the same, but then I saw the movies and actually quite enjoyed them. I'm still not motivated to go and read the books at all, but the movies were a lot better than I'd expected. |
09:42am 08/01/04 Permalink
Poor Rowen Atkinson, he's always been depressed by making people laugh, apparently now he's in a deep depression at the moment :/
Perhaps fame and fortune aren't all that? |
09:44am 08/01/04 Permalink
How could you not like the movies Kat? I haven't read the books either but the movies are awesome. I think the 2nd movie is way better than the first and now that the trailer to the 3rf one is out, that looks f*****g awesome too!
You should come around my place Kat and watch them. 8-) |
10:24am 08/01/04 Permalink
I haven't read a book and I haven't seen a movie and surprisingly I don't give a s***. I think they are a sick cult because everyone I know who has read a book or seen a movie is obsessed. Such an informed opion. Why am I not surprised that you have never read a book. Rowan Atkinson will deffinitly make an intresting bady. Might not be a good bady but intresting none the less. |
10:44am 08/01/04 Permalink
i saw the movies and decided to read the books, the books are awesome. The grow with the reader, so the first one is based for 11 year olds, but the 5th one is based for 16, with alot more issues n stuff. But having read them all i certainly cannot see rowan atkinson playing voldemort, totally seems wrong, there is no way i could see him as any kind of serious character.
|
11:12am 08/01/04 Permalink
Deadly, I have read many a book in my time, just not the Harry Potter ones.
I refuse to go see then, incase I get caught up in the cult :p |
11:14am 08/01/04 Permalink
Just hire them out on dvd and watch them at home, then nobody will know and you can still pretend you never saw them.
|
11:17am 08/01/04 Permalink
cos then you feel dirty and wrong. and that would be different from normal how...? but yeah, can't wait 'til she gets older. |
12:04pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I haven't read a book and I haven't seen a movie and surprisingly I don't give a s*** My cousian convinced me to watch the movie, because she totaly loves harry potter, after that I read the books. They are not great bits work by any standard, heck even the later books feel a little forced. But as a bit of entertainment to last a couple of days ... they are not bad. |
12:10pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I dont know about youg uys but all i saw on that page was this ->
http://www.page3.com/ Cha ching! Also Hermione will be a stunner when she is much older. |
01:15pm 08/01/04 Permalink
i like rowan atkinson, i think he can act well. though i didn't like mister bean, it will still be interesting with him as voldemort
|
01:28pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I reckon he could do an evil character pretty well. I wouldn't have chosen Alan Rickman as Snape either, but he does a pretty good job.
|
02:02pm 08/01/04 Permalink
erm rowen atkinson has denied hes been casted as voldemort and also casting hasnt even started for movie 4 yet. someone just made this s*** up.
|
04:14pm 08/01/04 Permalink
Yeah apparently its bulls***.
The Sun blows. Anyway, i can't wait for the 3rd movie. Though i don't know how good the casting of Professor Lupin is. The only thing the guy has been in that i've even seen has been the Big Lebowski, and he was the gay guy who was giggling the whole time, who the Dude says "who the f*** are you anyway?" to. Edit: i'm drunk last edited by nF at 17:03:54 08/Jan/04 |
05:02pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I reckon Gary Oldman or John Malcovich would be very good Voldermorts.
Not Rowan thats for sure...too stereotyped as a comedian. Every time you saw him you think why is Mr Bean trying to kill Harry? :P |
05:56pm 08/01/04 Permalink
Totaly agree Psycho!, Gary Oldman is my all time favourite villain actor, well him and Tim Roth.
I'd say that whoever does play the part of Voldemort would most likely be english which would count Oldman out. |
06:04pm 08/01/04 Permalink
none of you have ever seen him do a non-comedic part, so stop "omg he is going to suck maen"
|
06:05pm 08/01/04 Permalink
Gary Oldman is playing Sirius Black, and he is actually english.
|
06:21pm 08/01/04 Permalink
^^ Well you learn something new everyday
|
06:22pm 08/01/04 Permalink
4 weddings and a funeral he played Father Gerald a resonably straight part.
|
06:30pm 08/01/04 Permalink
you nf is a f****tain, there is no way in hell that is possible.
|
08:08pm 08/01/04 Permalink
LOTR was a great story ruined by a completely messed up narrative, theres no consistancy at all, which makes it a bore to read.
|
08:24pm 08/01/04 Permalink
What you don't realise is, he didn't write the book for the public he wrote it for himself and he wrote it the way he wanted to. This is why it's not setup like any other conventional story book.
The book's were written with such magnificent literature, that what you read today make's you blind to that. Saying that harry pottter is greater than lotr book's is a very strange and poorly excecuted decision. It's just like music today, poor media created music is taking the place of talent. Don't get me wrong, the person who wrote harry potter is a very good right, but those book's will never be classed as the same level as literature as tolkien's work. I still find it hard that you could say something like that. |
08:49pm 08/01/04 Permalink
Saying that harry pottter is greater than lotr book's is a very strange and poorly excecuted decision... You certainly wont win any literacy prizes. I mean, just what exactly is a 'poorly executed decision', and what exactly do you find hard? Even Tolkien said that he wasn't happy with LOTR. LOTR as a story is a great story but it is a b**** of a book to read because it is full of so much s***. Harry Potter on the other hand is a good story and is actually quite enjoyable to read. |
08:58pm 08/01/04 Permalink
LOTR as a story is a great story but it is a b**** of a book to read because it is full of so much s***.Exactly, I loved the story so much (only read the first book), but I just couldn't stand reading them. Hence, I waited for the movies and I'm glad I did. |
09:00pm 08/01/04 Permalink
Its pretty easy to say it actually, because i read the books. I loved the story, but the way it was written made it a real chore to read. You can go on and on about how brilliantly they were written, but your mixing up a brilliant story with brilliant story telling.
Tolkien himself said he wasn't happy with the way lots of things were done in the book, and admitted it had some incosistancy in it due to the time span he wrote it over. The LOTR movies, on the other hand, tell the story brilliantly, and in a far more accessible way. Also i don't have a clue what you're talking about in regards to music today. |
09:07pm 08/01/04 Permalink
See the problem here, is that Gary Potter is a f*****g kids movie.
Ive seen both 1 & 2 out of circumstance and found very little content in there for an adult audience. Now im not talking nudes and violence here (allthough that would be pretty cool), just adult humour in the same vein as awesome movies like Shrek and Emporers New Groove that appeal to adults that get dragged along by kids. Ive never read any of the books, and certainly dont intend to, but the movies are just as kiddy as any disney flick. Rowen Atkinson certainly seems very appropriate. Sup. |
09:09pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I don't think he said he wasn't happy with LOTR, I believe it was more he wasn't happy with the title of the third book. It was meant to be "the war of the ring" but he was peer pressured into changing it to "the return of the king"
deadly-Fly, I wasn't aiming for literacy prize, I know my spelling ain't perfect but 'eh. What I don't understand is how someone can say HP is greater than LOTR...They are two completely different books, two different literacy skills, they are at opposite end's of the scale from one another... It's like if I said Sony headphones are better then Sennheiser. |
09:10pm 08/01/04 Permalink
|
09:16pm 08/01/04 Permalink
See the problem here, is that Gary Potter is a f*****g kids movie i was watching movie 1 last night, and i must agree, the way they did it was compleatly scrued, way to random & very little fealing was put into the story.(ie.. when harry finds out he is a wizzard hagrid just blerts it out, instead of the build up that the book created) and there are so many of examples of this in the first movie. HOWEVER the seccond movie was a big improvement they added alot more of the books story line into it and i enjoyed it more. and i am looking forawrd to the 3rd movie as much as the 6th book, it looks like they added alot more story line to it. i also agree that this post probably made little sense, but think about it abit. |
09:34pm 08/01/04 Permalink
First up, cut Tolkien some slack, he's by no means a typist and he had to type out that entire work on an old fashioned, 1950's typewriter (yeah, the ones that you have to hit all the time).
Now, that being said - true, it has a bit too much "clutter" in it. The story is quite good (except for the ending, um, huge climax please - let the powerful guy have his ring back and get Gandalf or someone to use some real power maybe?), but there is just too much irrelevant information along with lack of mystery to be a 'good read' in my opinion. However, I did find it to have a very unique, extraordinary charisma (big plus from me on that one). Harry Potter - they're written for kids, and the key to their success is mainly from the original and loveable characters, magical theme (adds mystery and wonder), and deep, well developed story plots, not to mention the huge ending where your mind is blown away because you could never have expected THAT to happen (the endings are based more on plot than action). I found myself fairly bored while reading Harry Potter up until chapter 13 in each book... then I started wanting to read them. Lord of the Rings, I was fairly bored all the way through, but I enjoyed the movies a lot more than I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies. If you want a good book to read - I found Raymond E Feist's work much more entertaining - Magician is boring at first, but once you get into the latter parts and then the next two books of the Riftwar saga, it's quite hard to put them down. Then again, maybe you should just wait for my work to be released … Virtuar - Awakening Coming soon! |
10:28pm 08/01/04 Permalink
I'm sure tolkien would have rewritten parts of LOTR many times, the issue of his typing being a non-issue really.
There would have been many drafts i bet. |
10:42pm 08/01/04 Permalink
dice i almost ahve all of Raymond E. Fei'st novels. they are bloody awsome. i love them. i especially like his serpent war saga novels. bloody brilliant.
|
11:04pm 08/01/04 Permalink
ravn0s ... for real? the riftwar saga was pretty damn good (the Valheru idea owned, but he should have used Tomas more in the latter books!)
is the serpent wars saga set on Midkemia? |
11:54pm 08/01/04 Permalink
yes its on midkemia. it has pug,tomas and a few of the other characters from rift war saga. it also has some really awsome new cahracters. its 4 books Shadow of a Dark Queen, Rise of a Merchent Prince, Rage of a Demon King and Shards of a Broken Crown. its like a sequel to the rift war saga. some of the cahracters go to diff continents and some of the older characters develop even more. another saga set on midkemia with pretty much some of the same cahracters is the Krondor saga which is only 3 books so far but i think hes writing another 2 for the saga. right now im reading Honoured Enemy Legends of the Riftwar which is pretty good so far.
|
12:02am 09/01/04 Permalink
hmm nice, will have to check them out
ta for the tip |
12:06am 09/01/04 Permalink
Tolkien could beat up Raymond E. Feist anyday
|
12:15am 09/01/04 Permalink
Tolkien could beat up Raymond E. Feist anyday |
12:20am 09/01/04 Permalink
yeah well my dad could beat your dad up with his left hand behind his back
on that note though: Raymond E Feist doesn't have as cool a charisma as Tolkien, but his work is a hell of a lot more interesting! it took me 6 months to read The Return of the King ... it took me 4 days to read "A Darkness at Sethanon" - that's the interest factor, had to force myself to pick up ROTK, couldn't wait to see what happened in ADAS go read them if you haven't Riftwar Saga: Magician Silverthorn A Darkness at Sethanon |
12:20am 09/01/04 Permalink
it took me 4 days to read "A Darkness at Sethanon" i got so into magician that i finished it in 2 days also if u want to read the serpent war saga i suggest u read Prince of the Blood and The King's Bucanneer first becasue they introduce some of the cahracters that are in the serpent war saga. |
10:34am 09/01/04 Permalink
what are these books about, similar to lotr? or completley differnt?
|
10:38am 09/01/04 Permalink
how about you guys read Feist's books in this order
there's also the Mistress of the empire books which show the Tsuranuuni/Kelewan side of the Riftwar. i wouldn't read any of the books that he's written after the fact and tried to slip back into the timeline, cuz they're s*** and he's losing the plot with them last edited by Erik-the-Red at 11:00:13 09/Jan/04 |
10:59am 09/01/04 Permalink
Erik - your little mouse thingo with the sign in your sig.. is that meant to be accurate?
|
11:12am 09/01/04 Permalink
i think it's suppose to be, my server is f*****g it tho - ISP OnTheNet.net ??
IP: 0.0.0.0 |
11:17am 09/01/04 Permalink
Back on topic: Even though when I see Rowan i think of Mr Bean ill give him a chance if he is actually cast. The picture on the Sun report was a blatant Photoshop and they could have at least put a real pic of him in to make it seem half real.
The Latter topic: LOTR is soooo > HP.I read 1-3 of the HP books before I read the LOTR. My parents got me the LOTR to read because they knew I enjoyed the HP books and they wanted me to experience its predecessor. I admit I was turned off by the length of the LOTR and the small writing compared to HP. However, a few days I picked it up and started reading it. I really enjoy it and I read it at least once every year. With HP read it whenever I feel the need but the long wait in between books its tiresome. With the LOTR the three books are there and there is always the appendices, the Hobbit and the various other books that have been released. Yesterday I bought Unfinished Tales which has proved to be very good and it links the issues that are left untouched in the LOTR. Its probably more accurate to compare The Hobbit to HP as they are targeted at the same audience whereas the LOTR is more advanced and is more complex. Edit: Erik's sig is accurate for me. :p last edited by Triamks at 11:28:44 09/Jan/04 |
11:27am 09/01/04 Permalink
