I aggree with the idea that the Ring made Frodo look young. I wonder if that is what PJ thought. I think a lot of the actors looked young. But hey you can't have a 60-100 year old man play somebody like Aragorn can you?
Outwardly he retained the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens
Agree. Plus there is another point. PJ did not want to have a gap of 17 years between Bilbo's farewell party and Frodo's departure, so he made it appear as if happened within a couple of years maximum. That means that Frodo in the movie was not 50 at all!I think you've missed Tolkien's point: wisdom comes with maturity. While Frodo may continue to appear youthful, at age 50 hobbits - and humans - if they've paid attention to life know more of themselves and of the world, and they are more modest in their claims about knowledge and ability. The relationship between Frodo and Sam only makes sense with this difference in age. The movie, I think, went more for audience identification than it did with faithfulness to the text or to life.
Or Townsend before Mortensen replaced him. Funnily, enough Viggo was off-set more book Aragorn with his ranger antics than on-screen.The casting choices didn't bother me; I thought the hobbits were fine. Faramir was a little beefier than my own picture of him, and Sean Bean a bit slighter, but that's minor. Of the things that annoy me about the films, the cast is so far down the list as to be invisible.
Think what might have been; Olorgando mentioned some Big Names. I recall when the movie project was being bandied about, there a fan push for Aragorn to be played by, yes, Tom Cruise. Think about that.
Way back in the 60's, during the first great Tolkien wave, there was talk of a film, with similar arguments about casting in the early fanzines. In a magazine interview, Ringo Starr publicly begged for the part of Sam. And Barliman recently reminded me of something I'd forgotten from those days: I'd (admittedly rather facetiously) suggested Michael J. Pollard for Aragorn.
View attachment 6002
Well, it made as much sense as Kirk Douglas. Or John Wayne.
Had to check up on (Stuart) Townsend, as the name rings no bells. Spontaneous reaction was, "well, they did lots of stuff with prosthetics with John Rhys Davies …"Or Townsend before Mortensen replaced him. Funnily, enough Viggo was off-set more book Aragorn with his ranger antics than on-screen.
That is for sure.Had to check up on (Stuart) Townsend, as the name rings no bells. Spontaneous reaction was, "well, they did lots of stuff with prosthetics with John Rhys Davies …"
Far too young is my impression. Viggo was 43 when "Fellowship" was released, Townsend, 14 years younger, would have been 29! Now I have no idea whatsoever about his acting abilities, but my gut feeling is getting Viggo instead of Townsend was a bit of luck for the films (a "baby-faced" Aragorn to go with a "baby-faced" Frodo - that could well have been serious hackle-raising territory!)