Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

[jeanmarieward]

Okay, it was bad enough to learn the SciFi Channel planned to cap their Boxing Day Highlander, the Series marathon with the ghastly fifth HL movie.  (Yes, I'm a card-carrying Methos fan.  Yes, I would actually watch Dr. Who if someone got a brain and cast Peter Wingfield as the doctor.  Heck, I watched Queen of Swords back in the day.  But even the presence of my all-time favorite HL character can not save The Source.  Shudder!)
But Hollywood, say it ain't so!  You cannot seriously intend to cast Keanu Reeves as Spike Spiegel.  Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Somebody, please, tell me who the earth needs to open up and swallow to prevent this!  I'm an earth sign.  I could do it.  With this much motivation, I could do it.
Hugs and wails,
Jean Marie

Comments

[vonandmoggy.livejournal.com]

This is the kinda of thing I'm probably going to regret posting on, but I'll try anyway because I'm not understanding a number of things.

1. You don't watch Dr. Who now? So the David Tennant or even Christopher Eccleston versions aren't something you watch? But you would watch it if an actor you prefer is cast to star on it? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I get that you might just not like the show after giving it a fair try. I get that. But to watch or stop watching a show based on casting is really, really odd to me. A number of other things need to change along with casting to make me stop watching - or watch in the first place.

2. Highlander: The Series. No offence, but that was a terrible show. A few passable episodes here and there, but man...I hated all of the sequels to the original movie and, respectfully, the TV series was just as bad. The continuity alone killed me - Connor MacLeod is the last immortal. Period. And he gives up that immortality for some form of telepathic powers at the end of the first movie. Any future series has to be a prequel if they want to have immortals playing a leading role. Sequels only work from a radically different non-immortal narrative point of view. And yet, all of the subsequent films and the TV series basically rewrote the ending of the first movie. That's not something I could get over. Blech. Terrible.

3. Cowboy Bebop: I have never seen it. But shouldn't we reserve judgment on the casting 'til after the film has been made? Putting myself in Keanu Reeves shoes, it would be hard not to be hurt if someone felt that way if, say, I took over one of the X-Men comics or something. Hell, I don't care if people damn me if the work sucks after the fact. Each to their own. But doing that before...? It doesn't seem fair or balanced at all to me. I say this being a life long Star Trek fan with mixed feelings about the upcoming new movie. But I'm totally willing to give the new cast a chance before I see it.

Hopefully I make sense!

Von

[jmward14.livejournal.com]

LOL You obviously never spent any time as a fan girl. (And Moggy is really grateful on this point, too.)
1. I tried watching the most recent iterations of Dr. Who. (I missed all the earlier ones, because the vagaries of US broadcast system.) The time paradoxes gave me brain ache, though in retrospect they weren't as bad as what happened on Primeval. But some of the stories were fun, and I might've stuck around longer if the male leads were more appealing. The first thing you need to understand about fangirl mentality is we're all about the appeal. In my case, I'm also casting for future hero types for my fiction, and once I find a likely candidate, I'll check out all their projects for additional inspiration.
2. The first Highlander is great pop fantasy, but Christopher Lambert was NEVER the answer to this (long-ago) maiden's prayers. I never watched Highlander, the Series regularly until the character of Methos appeared. He, not the titular Highlander, rang my chimes and inspired the fan fiction that got me writing again after a ten-year hiatus. (See, 1. above. :D) His appearance also kicked off the third through fifth year story arcs that were the series' finest hours.
As for continuity between the movies and the series, the producers denied there was any...until the fourth movie. And ALL the fans--movie and series partisans, both--cringed.
3. The joy about commenting about an industry with which I have no contact--and whose participants are public figures--is I don't have to hold my tongue or censor my opinions. They harm none. The players never see them, and I'll never meet the players. It's a get out of jail free card for everybody.
And in my opinion Keanu Reeves is an awful actor. The memory of him in Much Ado About Nothing is enough to cause physical pain. He performs well enough when the character is not required to show intelligence or emotion. Think Neo in The Matrix or Klaatu. He's this generation's Great Stone Face, minus Gregory Peck's off-screen intelligence and charm. (Peck is one of the few Hollywood actors I've met in person, so I can cheerfully attest to the latter.) All of which makes Reeves entirely wrong for the character of Spike Spiegel.
Cowboy Bebop is arguably the best anime series ever. It was close to perfect in it's original form. It's like Marion C. Cooper's King Kong. Why muck with perfection? But if you must mess with it, you need to bring some brains to it, as Christopher Nolan did to Tim Burton's vision of Batman. The casting of Keanu Reeves shows just the opposite. For starters, he's twenty years older than the character and he lacks the ability to play a charming smartass. In the twenty years of his cinematic career, he's never once been able to play a character who's comfortable talking. It's just not in his cinematic skill set.
And no, normally I'm not this passionate about casting. But for crying out loud, it's Spike!
Hugs and smiles,
Jean Marie

My answer - Part 1

[vonandmoggy.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree and that's fine. It's one of the things that I love about the 'net - encountering varied and different opinions and very passionate and well-educated people. You are certainly that! :)

One thing really troubles me, though. You said, "The joy about commenting about an industry with which I have no contact--and whose participants are public figures--is I don't have to hold my tongue or censor my opinions. They harm none. The players never see them, and I'll never meet the players. It's a get out of jail free card for everybody."

Honestly, I'm not sure how you can say that. We both have, as far as I know, no idea whether someone like Reeves (or any other public figure, for that matter) surfs online and looks for comments. On top of it, Google Alerts alone can simply inform someone when any public discussion is occuring. Just for curiosity's sake, I did a site search on your blog - sure enough, this recent post on Reeves does show up. Which means that it's out there, online, for anyone to come across. Including Reeves or someone close to him.

So, when you say that "the players never see them" I have no idea what you're basing this on. While I think it's a guess (and probably a fair guess, too), we'll honestly never know. Reeves may have seen it already. Or maybe never will. Who knows? I don't think anyone can say what you're saying with absolute certainty, however. Broadly speaking, this is one of the things that troubles me about the internet. There's a lack of discourse and civility - people will say things to or about someone else that, in a face to face context, they probably never would. I don't believe and will never believe that just because someone is a public figure that means all gloves are off. Comments, especially off the cuff comments, can and do hurt.

If we think about it for a sec, you are a public figure, too. You have a public online presence. You're also a published author. While I don't think you're as rich as someone like Reeves undoubtably is (and if you are, can I have a grant?!) and while I don't think you have as high of a public profile as Reeves does, that doesn't mean you aren't a public figure and that you don't have a public profile. You do. Don't believe me? Well, I took a quick peek at your Flickr photostream. Here you're on a public panel. And here you're on another one. If all this isn't a public profile, I have no idea what is.

Ack! I've hit LJ's comment limit. More in just a sec!

My answer - Part 2

[vonandmoggy.livejournal.com]

Continuing from my last comment.

So this brings up two further points. First, how you conduct yourself as a public figure is important. It does, to some extent, reflect on you. Ok, that probably made you spit up laughing. :) I'm not saying you shouldn't say whatever you wish. I'm just saying that I think you should consider what you're saying fairly carefully. If you wanna say it after due consideration, knock yourself out. There are some public figurs online (say a guy like Warren Ellis, who'll basically say whatever he wants whenever he wants. 'Course, that's also why this cartoon is so funny). Secondly, people could, down the road, wind up saying the same kinda things about you, too. And you might, just might, see those comments. And while you may feel those comments are "fair game" or some such, my point is that these comments are not made in a bubble. In other words, the player could see them. See, I think legitimate criticism is just that - legitimate. I think you're comments (notably when you said, "But Hollywood, say it ain't so! You cannot seriously intend to cast Keanu Reeves as Spike Spiegel. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!") aren't that at all. You have every right to have that opinion, of course. More power to you. Should you be saying that publicly like that? I'd say no. Ultimately, of course, it's up to you.

How we conduct ourselves online is very important. And while I'm very much against censorship and a big believer in free speech, I do believe in self-censorship depending on the context. I don't say everything I think online. Never have and I doubt I ever will. It's probably why I don't post all that much. And why I'm careful when I do.

Merry Christmas!

Von

Re: My answer - Part 2

[jmward14.livejournal.com]

Von, I agree with you. There are some things which are inappropriate for a public forum--things like personal attacks, casting aspersions on someone's family, libel, slander, threats and spreading saucy stories about a stranger's private sex habits.
A personal opinion regarding an actor's skill or ability to play a role is another matter entirely. It's a review. Speaking as the wife of a recovering actor (they're never fully cured ;-)), actors seldom enjoy bad notices, but they expect them. After all, a bad review is better than no review at all. The same applies to writers. The one really bad review we received for Vanyr lifted our sales figures for ten days afterwards. I wrote the guy a thank you note too, and I meant every word.
If by some miraculous chance this discussion actually pinged on the radar of anybody involved in the Cowboy Bebop project, they'd feel the same way. The discussion has gone on so long it's generating it's own buzz, which translates into viral marketing for the property. And they haven't even started filming yet, much less paid us for our time.
Much love and best Christmas wishes to you and Moggy,
Jean Marie

[sandyinstep.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with you if Keanu could act his way out of a paper sack. Alas, he cannot. His Neo/The One acting is no different from any other he's played onscreen except his critter in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Otherwise, it's all monochromatic.

The guy can't act, and I'm uncertain why he keeps getting cast.