http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050418k.php
unless this is wrong the doctor who guy beat Jim Carrey for the role of silas.
 |  |  |
 |
Dang IT!
22 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
good. this guy seems to be more fitting as the role for Silas.
HHHmmm.............i disagree there................i don't think Ecclestone has the humanity that Jim has..............i think the role demands a vulnerability and the sense that this is a lost soul....in pain, vulnerable and wronged by life...............Ecclestone won't cut it............mark my words!!............
I've seen him in loads of British tv and he's Not up to, what in my opinion is, the crucial role of The Code..............but we shall see.......... 
Fluffy  Last edited by fluffy on Sat May 14, 2005 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Personally, I have conflicting emotions about whether or not the book should be made into a movie. Please don't flagellate me (pun intended), but some things are just better as a book, 'ya know?
I was a little worried about him in the Silas role. Oh me of little faith. I'd rather see him play Langdon. I enjoyed "Angels and Demons" more than Da Vinci. I have a friend who is very Catholic and he told me about the books and advised that I read "Angels and Demons" first. There was a whole lotta hullabaloo when Da Vinci came out and it was almost saturating. I waited to read these until all of that had passed and just before the Pope John Paul got so gravely ill, so it was kind of interesting to see more about the Vatican and the ritual having just finished the books. Also, I didn't find out until I was 30, that my father's father's family was Catholic. It's a long, tragic interesting story, and I was able to discover a little more about that branch of the faith on my own. Anyway, back to Jim. Something better will present itself. "When in doubt, tell the truth."
Mark Twain
yep..............i must admit the only thing that bothered me was the issue that despite it being an important role it isn't the lead role.........Jim is not a supporting actor......he's a leading man............
as a supporting actor he's liable to act everyone else off the stage....see Batman for example..........and when he does get the OSCAR (and he will...you'll see)....it should be in a leading role........as that is what he has dedicated his life to....... fluffy
but with regards to the Code............it will either be a spectacular hit.....or a spectacular flop.....there will be no inbetween.............
I predict that monetarily, it will be a spectacular hit. It really CAN'T miss, in that sense...because I'm sure there will be an UPROAR about it. There is a destiny of free publicity for it, but it will ruffle some feathers. "When in doubt, tell the truth."
Mark Twain
I know what you mean...........but if the uproar is big enough it might flop..............see 'The Last Temptation of Christ'......but then again Mel Gibson did that horrific video nasty.....'the Passion of the Christ'....and he bought an island on the interest he made from the takings.....
it'll depend on the cast, the script the director, the donnuts.......the list is endless.........
But I don't think it was preceeded by a blockbuster best-selling book that garnered a cult-like following. "When in doubt, tell the truth."
Mark Twain
good points quirky and fluffy.
i read angels and demons after davinci code and agree that angels and demons is the better read. however, davinci code READS like a movie. you can almost see the fades to black, etc. that is probably why it did far better in sales. (you know that whole short attention span thing we have now) tom hanks will do great as langdon. Jim could have played that part after seeing what he could "do" in Eternal Sunshine. he could definitely pull off that hunky professor role LOL (sorry i digress). i will go see davinci code when it comes out but like you said. i saw the best "movie" while i was reading the book. it will never top that.
it upset me too.
well, if you hold christian beliefs, you know why he couldn't tell everyone to F*ck off 
but i still like the fact that mel gibson showed the brutality of what was done to jesus. he wasn't doing this "for the shock value". we see beautiful paintings of jesus on the cross and in mary's arms when in reality, he was beaten severely probably to the point of being unrecogizable and although it may be hard to stomach and easy to look away, there is historical proof that this is how the romans did it back then. i think this was meant to be a wake up call for some. there i go again.... 
22 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests  | |
 |  |
