If there was a Farseer Film...?

No one could play the parts in a way which would satisfy me *shrug* I think I'd cry if a film was made,lol, it would never do the books justice. I'd have to see it though...one of those things you cant help but look at...like puppies on train tracks *grin*
 
The hardest part to get right would be the bond between Fitz and Nighteyes, as I really do believe that the entire story depends on getting that part absolutley the same as the reader got from reading the novels. If they can not accomplish that I think it would fail and very poorly at that.
 
Here's some suggestions...
* Johnny depp as the Fool/ Amber/ Lord Golden. Any Johnny Depp fan would know he's quirky enough to pull it off, he'd have to bleach his hair!! Very pale in Edward Scissorhands (He'd make a good Kennit too).
* Bill Nighy as Chade
* James McAvoy as a possible young Fitz (Played Dan Foster in State of Play)
PS Any film that's worth it's salt needs a role for Samuel L Jackson... He's in everything! Can't work out who he could possibly be!
 
I've actually been thinking about this, myself. (I'm only in the second book of the Farseer Trilogy). And, because I'm an aspiring author myself, I have a bad habit of picturing actors halfway through what I'm reading or writing (just in case anything I ever publish gets made, lol).

As far as Fitz, honestly, first person that came to mind was Haley Joel Osment. I honestly think he could do a good job.

For Burrich, I see Brendan Gleeson, the one who played "MadEye Moody" in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire".

Where Kettricken, the Queen-in-Waiting, is concerned, oddly enough (and bear with me here), I see Trini Alvarado from "The Frighteners". Go back and watch that film, I think you'll understand why I pick her.

As for the Fool, Tilda Swinton all the way.

For Galen, I see Jeff Goldblum.

For Regal, I see Jason Isaacs.

For Chade, I'm thinking either Donald Sutherland or Jeremy Irons. Even Patrick Stewart could work, here.

For Verity, I see Johnny Depp.



Now, whether or not you agree with my choices (and I'm sure many of you won't, lol), the choices COULD work, given the proper writers and director. Look at "Shawshank Redemption". The characters looked nothing like their story counterparts (in the story, Red was Irish, yet in the movie he was Morgan Freeman; Andy Dufresne was a SHORT man in the story -- 5'4", I believe -- and in the movie he was played by 6'3" Tim Robbins. :-D). I honestly think it could work.

It COULD be disappointing for a movie to be made, but I seriously think it COULD be done properly. All it would take is the right writer and director.
 
I really like your ideas, TN. With the right writer and director it could be done. And yes, do cast a woman as The Fool. It would have to be someone who's very limber, though, for all the tumbling the Fool does.
 
Taking it as a given that any movie probably wouldn't work... if they did decide to make one or a series.

A female actor would probably work best for the Fool and Tilda Swinton sounds good but for a male actor I'll throw Cillian Murphy's hat into the ring.

Terran's mention of Donald Sutherland for Chade made me think that a young Kiefer (think lost boys) might have worked for Fitz. I always pictured Fitz as a bit short and if not stocky atleast broad shouldered but I cant remember if he actually was in the book or if it was just my take on it :).

I've never seen Seth Green in anything but comedies but I wonder if he could play Fitz, although again it really needs to be someone younger.

Joaquin Phoenix for Regal?
 
Ahhh, now two very very good actors have been mentioned on this thread. Joaquin Phenonix is superb in "the Village" I look forward to seeing walk the line soon. Jonny Depp is just such a camelon he can do so many things, compare Willy Wonka to Captain Jack Sparrow.

For Chade Patrick Stewart either that or the king shrewd
For Fitz himself I think Joaquin
For the fool Jonny Depp, although wouldnt say no to Tilda swinton (the white queen from Chroncles of Narnia as if you need her identified:eek: :D )

As for Nighteyes animatronics and CGI is coming along nicely could be done but the problem is more budget and interest. I dont see them making it in the next few years, but who knows who thought Lord Of The Rings would be ever filmed in live action.

Ooooo, Peter Jackson to direct!
 
The major problem I'm seeing, is people are worried that if a movie ( or movies ) were made, it wouldn't be exactly like the book.

As much as I'm a fan for movies being like the books they're based on, I know that if a movie is TOO much like the book, it actually ruins the movie.

I have seen a couple of movies that were almost exactly like the books they were based on. And I couldn't stand them. There is something to be said for minor creative license.

I'm not at all for too much being changed between the Farseer Trilogy and movies being made, but slight changes or merged changes could definitely make the movies well worth watching.

It's like with watching movies based on video games. Take "Super Mario Bros." for example. I LOVED the movie. Because it wasn't exactly like the games. It was corny and silly and didn't take itself too seriously. I would have been bored to tears if it had remained too faithful to the game. I would not really care for a movie about a plumber and him brother running around jumping on mushrooms and turtles and jumping into sewer holes. It'd be boring. lol

But, as stated, I do believe that movies could work if the characters were correctly cast, and the heart of the book, given small details here and there, remained true.

And yes, I agree, a lot would be balanced on the Nighteyes/Fitz bond. It could be done. It could be done well. It'd be difficult, but it could be done well. That, and the friendship between Fitz and The Fool.

But, given the right writer, the right director, and the right actors, I believe the books could make a beautiful transition from written page to big screen.
 
the_faery_queen said:
there's no one alive perfect enough for the fool, i think :)
Click to expand...
I agree :(
Maybe an anime film? I'm not normally a huge fan of anime but if it was well illustrated and coloured and such I think it would look very good. The Fool would certainly make a great anime character.
I also think all three trilogies could fit into three films, it wouldn't even need to be condensed too greatly. Just in the books a lot goes into descriptions which could obviously be shown in the visual aspects of the film, and the characters personal contemplations and feelings, which could possibly be conveyed in some other way.
But if it were to be real actors and such, I think Joaquim Phoenix would make a pretty good Fitz :)
As far as looks are concerned, I think Elijah Wood would look great as the young Fool. But Johnny Depp's definately got the right personality and quirkiness to pull off the Fool's whimsicality aswell as looks. Maybe Viggo Mortensen as Verity (yeah I'm sorta crossing into LotR casts here now lol)
 
Last edited:
jackokent said:
I'd be devestated if they made this into a film but if they did I always imagine the Fitz as a sort of Ray Winston or maybe the way Bruce Willis was in 12 monkeys - sort of tragic and hard done by, but roughtytufty at the same time.

The fool would be harder I think - Maybe a girl would be better.

And as for Molly, I can't think of anyone annoying enough - possibly Jade Goody:)
Click to expand...

lmao @ the part about Molly
 
Teir said:
No one could play the parts in a way which would satisfy me *shrug* I think I'd cry if a film was made,lol, it would never do the books justice. I'd have to see it though...one of those things you cant help but look at...like puppies on train tracks *grin*
Click to expand...

I totally agree. No move would do the books justice. I dont think i know of any books-made-movie that have left me satisfied. Espesially Eragon, It was a decent book but the movie was terrible.
 
Honestly I probably wouldn't like it if these books were made into a movie (movies, series), once a book is made into a movie then whenever I reread it (which I will if its one of my favorites, which the Hobb books are), I can't picture them as anything but the actors who played them. That's fine unless the person that was cast for the part didn't fit my personal image for the character at all, then it's just disconcerting.

If it WAS made into a movie though, I agree Tilda Swinton would work for the Fool possibly (although I don't think anyone could pull it off very well). Also oddly enough my high school science teacher would be a good Fool, he reminded me of him as soon as I read the Farseer trilogy. He's very tall and lanky, very witty, extremely strange, and was prone to jumping around the classroom for no apparent reason. Although he isn’t very feminine . . . but he’s certainly not masculine either. I honestly don’t think he grows facial hair, at all. And he always wears one small earring, plus he never ate with the teachers at lunch, was always sort of off on his own. I don’t know, he just really reminded me/reminds me of the Fool.

When thinking of actors who would play the parts well/or look like the characters nobody came to mind right away except for Joaquin Phenonix as Regal. I mean look at his job in Gladiator as Commodus! He was so creepy and realistic in that film that it took me years to warm up to the actor afterwards. He did almost too good of a job, I kept thinking of him as Commodus. Eventually I got over it and he’s now one of my favorite actors. I think he even looks like Regal, or at least what I picture him as.
 
Okay, I've been reading through this thread, and I finally decided to post, because if I didn't get a chance to weigh in on this, I would burst.

Forget Fitz, or Verity, or all those "main and important characters". ;)

Being a bit of a character actor myself, I always get really wrapped up in character parts... supporting actors and the like.

My favourite character in Farseer has to be... Burrich. Yeah, yeah... I know. But there was something that touched me about him while reading the books. He reminds me of my Dad, I guess. A deep and emotional man, who has choked back his emotions for the "good" of his family (adopted son, in Burrich's case).

When I was reading, I always pictured Burrich as Henry Rollins. Gruff, surly, but with a heart of gold, a good head on his shoulders, and the ability to completely lose it if he needed to.
 
Do you know something Flaidd, you're right. Had to look up Henry Rollins, but looking at him and reading about him, he does fit the bill as Burrich.:)
 
A movie wouldnt be able to do the stories any justice.

A series however.... that sounds much more feasible. What do we have at present on TV - LOST, Heroes and Robin Hood. The Farseer Trilogy would pan out quite well if a series was made in a similar fashion to how these are made.

You wouldnt have to have major major special effects or major gore, but just enough to whet the appetite so to speak. A typical example is the type of violence portrayed in Heroes i.e. Sylar cutting someones head open, Claire regenerating from 3rd degree burns/50ft drop/being shot etc.

It can be done I reckon, in a series. Not a movie.
 
Apparently, HBO is in talks with George R.R. Martin to do this very thing... a multi-season television deal to put A Song of Ice and Fire on screen.

Of course, aSoIaF would probably have a treatment a little closer to HBO's earlier Rome than any treatment of The Farseer Trilogy could have.

Unless, of course, the screenwriters decided to throw some gratuitous explicit sex or violence into Farseer to bump up ratings. (Hot Burrich-on-Molly action, anyone?) Don't get me wrong, I loved Rome, but I think that a lot of the lurid material in that show could have been HEAVILY toned down without losing any of the plot at all. I mean, we get it... ancient Romans had very, very different ideas on ethics and morals than we do in the modern world... unfortunately, I think this was used by HBO/BBC as an excuse to bump up the ratings.

I fear that HBO's treatment of aSoIaF would fall victim to the same problem. There is so much opportunity for lurid content in Martin's work (which in the written form is only hinted at, but could be exploited by unscrupulous screenwriters in the translation to TV) that I don't think the producers could resist going for the ratings grab. Especially in the post-Sopranos world. ("Don't Stop Believin'" my fat, spotty ass.)

I'm not a big fan of aSoIaF to begin with... but I respect George Martin and I definitely see it as a project worth doing properly (even if I, for one, won't be watching). I just worry that when modern corporate Hollywood gets their hands on something, it begins to be bled dry in the name of the hallowed dollar/pound/euro/sheckel/ducat/etc. etc. etc.

I mean, even The Lord of the Rings films, while they were (in my opinion) the best cinematic accounting which could be made of Tolkien's original vision, were extremely shallow compared to the source material. The medium of cinema just isn't well-suited to the subtleties and complexities of the written word.

In short... I'd rather have my imagination tell me what The Fool looks like... not some artless Hollywood casting director who is looking for a name to put on a marquee.

I do think that the episodic TV treatment would be the only way to do Farseer on screen... and I think that I could only trust the BBC to do it properly. The Big Three (NBC, CBS, ABC), while they could keep a lid on the explicit content, would also pollute the thing with so many commercial breaks as to render it nearly unwatchable. The BBC has the wherewithal and the clout to make the damn thing mature but not trashy, while keeping the bloody adverts out.

Burrich tearfully draws Fitz from his grave. "You're not dead... you're not dead..." he says. Cut away to an advert for Viagra...

Of course, I hope it never happens. Mainly because I know they won't cast Henry Rollins as Burrich.

Sorry for the rant, but I have recently re-read The Lord of the Rings, followed by a watching of all 12-hours of the extended editions, and been deeply disappointed with myself for how badly I allowed those films to pervert my view of the original work.

[edit: corrected the channel that aSoIaF is appearing on... it's HBO, not Showtime. A stay of execution, but not a full pardon.]
 
Last edited:
Well put Flaidd, I have to agree with all that you have said. I certainly would not want The Farseer Trilogy to be screened any different than how it is written in the books. I guess the adaptation would depend on the director, but with things the way they are now, I think that I like the idea of the story and characters staying in my imagination, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Alexa The Farseer Trilogy trivia Robin Hobb 7
P Books Similar to Farseer/Tawny Man Series? Robin Hobb 5
A After the Farseer trilogy and fitz(spoilers) Robin Hobb 6
C Farseer Trilogy Robin Hobb 9
S Dream Cast for Farseer Movie!! Robin Hobb 9

Similar threads


Back
Top