Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
Characters/Actors
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kandice
(new)
Jan 23, 2009 01:54PM
When you are reading a Stephen King book, do you ever picture an actor in your head? Even if there is already a movie, I occasionally picture an actor I think would better portray the character. Often the picture I imagine in my head is completely fictional, but occasionally a real person just fits the bill so perfectly. Sometimes it isn't even an actual actor, just a figure I see on television or in print.
reply
|
flag
I tend to " cast" books in my head with actors or people from my life. When I read The Stand, i had already seen the miniseries and, in my opinion, Gary Sinise is perfect as Stu Redmon. Harold was an ex-boyfriend of mine (we broke up because he had world hating issues dating back to being picked on in high school) and the character (whose name is escaping me, help!) who was in prison when the superflu broke out was this guy I was running into at the local pool repeatedly who sorta was a dopelganger of Miguel Ferrer who played that character in the miniseries!
Mod
Angie, that's what ny dreams are like! I never really see facial features I just seem to know who the person is.
If a description strikes me, I cast an actor in my head. If not, I also don't really SEE facial features. I thought I was the only one! Weird to find out others do that too. When I first read Shawshank Redemption, I saw Dufresne as Stanley Tucci. Robbins was awesome, but he WAS NOT who was described in the book.
Edgar Freemantle will always be Ed Harris in my mind.
Lisey from Lisey's story will always be Deborah Winger.
Blaze for me is the guy that Played Tom Cullen in the stand. I'm sure part of that is that he was so memorably cast (and perfect!) in that as a mentally handicapped man, but I have no trouble adding the dent in the forhead in my mind.
I don't really cast actors in my head for characters in the book. I see the descriptions of the characters as themselves, but I can never really see their facial features either unless they are specifically described (Like Blaze's dent) but then I can only see that ONE feature at a time and the rest is blurred). Then if I see the movie comes out and I think that the actor fits the character better than the picture in my head, I'll switch it! (Weird, I know.)
I don't think that's weird at all. It's a bit the same for me. Like I said, if no one comes specifically to mind, I just don't see details, but after a well cast movie, those are the faces indelibly in my mind if I read again. It's weird ot me how Tim Robbins is so perfect in the movie, but described so differently in the book! How do they do that? Is it because of the casting director, or the way the actor plays the part?
I don't think anyone could have been more suited to do John Coffey than Michael Clarke Duncan.
No, definitely not! He's one I just imagined as large, no real features, except his hands, but then when I saw him in the movie... he WAS Coffey for me!I think Sissy Spacek was perfect as Carrie. Much better than the girl who played her in the remake.
is that the TV remake which I think comes from a much happier and odd dimension? :)
I think it was a Sci-Fi channel remake, but I'm not certain. I didn't even watch the whole thing because it was messing up my ideas of the story! I just really disliked the girl playing Carrie. I think she needed to look frail, and a bit odd, but that girls face was just so... unaproachable! She didn't look at all longing for friendship, just pissed at the world. Not MY idea of Carrie White.
I think it might be the same movie. They seriously screwed with the ending.
So, what did they do? I always thought filming Amy Irving walking backward in reverse at the end of the original was one of the most disturbing things I had ever seen. You just couldn't put your finger on why until they told you.
I agree with you that the original De Palma ending is really creepy. Inthe remake.............................Carrie lives. Lame.
I am SOOOOO glad I did not watch it. That is completely ridiculous! She has to die for the story to mean anything! I have never read King's feelings on that, and am surprised because it's such a big change. It literally changes the entire story!!! Oh! I hate that. *note to self* never, ever watch re-make.
I didn't even know there was a remake. I've never even seen the sure-to-be-terrible sequel.
I just hope, if he ever does, that he does NOT have Dakota "I'm in EVERYTHING" Fanning to play Carrie.
Mod
Angie-there is no way you didn't know that? You did, right?
Mod
[image error]src="http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo..." width="50" height="50" alt="description"/>
Jeez Rob, why don'tcha just poke her with a sharpened stick? Meanie!It's ok Angie, we know you'd get around to reading King's first published book eventually... right? ;)
I'm sorry! It's all my fault. There is NO excuse, but I just assumed... well assuming makes an ass out of you and me. Well, in this case, just me. :(
I say go with the book first. It's always better to read the book before seeing the movie in my opinion... :)
Mod
I LOVED the remake of Carrie! Here's why: it was truer to the book, with the hailstones, etc., and the girls were gorgeous. And none of what happened was Carrie's fault. Her abusive mother and her abusive schoolmates pushed her over the edge. So I don't care if she gets to live.
Actually I do remember liking that they stayed closer to the original story, plus telling the story through interviews with the classmates was kinda interesting but the end was too much of a WTF moment for me to get over.
If a movie is good, I don't really care if it's true to the book as much. I'm okay with viewing them as separate entities. If a movie ISN'T good, that's when I start to mind it didn't follow the book. Obviously if it was a good book, it would have been a better movie if they had PAID ATTENTION!I didn't care for the casting in the re-make and the end just didn't make sense to me. No, Carrie did not deserve to die, but was there a place for her in the world? No.
It is worth noting that in King's novel, Carrie is NOT anything resembling Spacek or Bettis. She is, by all standards, not pretty and rather overweight. I really cannot watch DePalma's movie without getting too freaked out...the TV movie is OK, but took too long to end...
Sissy Spacek (my fav of the two) does not look anything like King described, but her delicateness of feature really brings across Carrie's vulnerability for me. She's not a traditional beauty either, although I find her very attractive. No way, expecially in the 70's, were they going to cast a pasty faced, stringy, oily haired overweight girl. I think you really have to take each at face value, and the first Carrie movie was very scary and pretty heartbreaking. I think a lot of that was due to Spacek as Carrie White.
Rob-Spacek is NOT HOMELY!!!!! (I'm Smiling) She's pretty attractive as Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner's Daughter, she's just not a classic beauty. She just seems so small boned and delicate, and her voice is little girlish. It evokes feelings of protectiveness in me. That's what made her the perfect Carrie for me. I think the physical features described by an author are supposed to give you a feeling for the character. If an actor with different features makes you feel the same way, the end result is good.Like Red and Dufresne from Shawshank. There are probably no 2 other characters described so differently on a page than as portrayed. They both come across perfect, though!
I liked the first version of Carrie better--of course it was--scarier. But I don't care WHAT you say, I still love the second version.
SK did poop on Kubrick's Shining, and I did prefer the TV miniseries over it when comparing it to the book for these reasons:1) more back story on Jack
2) creepy hedge animals vs stupid hedge maze
3) Wendy! Rebecca De Mornay kicked ass where as Shelley Duvall was a simpering moron.
4) Nicholson was menacing from the beginning, Webber slides into it and GETS creepy
5) the Overlook! classic and classy looking in the TV version vs. HORRIBLE cheesy late 70's made over in the Kubrick version.
