I'm just saying, that could account for Frodo's youthful appearance, as we know he was over 50 and he'd had the ring for years before he set off to destroy it ...No, because it was BILBO who kept the Ring until his 111th birthday and gained the longevity benefits. They cast Elijah Wood (not to say that he didn't act his part well) because they wanted a Frodo for teenyboppers, period.
Thank you! Me too! I love the movie Miraz. Susan the Gentle Horn-Blower made the banner for me.Oh, and inkspot, I love your banner
I agree, 17 is not too far afield from the 15 that Caspian may have been ... but 26 is way far afield. Ben may think he is playing someone 17, but he is 26 any way you look at him.Assuming Ed was around two years younger than Peter and Peter and Caspian were the same age, then I would say that Caspian was more like 14-15 in the book because Ed was already learning Algebra and Latin, it says so in the book. Seventeen, the age that Ben Barnes seems to think he is playing, is not too far out of that realm.
LOL!Well, he doesn't look 17 and he never will even if you slap him around and make him cry like a baby. He will still look like a 25 year old crying.
As mentioned, when Peter and Edmund come into Aslan's How, they think the boy in the fight is about Peter's age, according to the book.Where do we find that Caspian was the same age as Peter????????
This is another area where we have to try to think of the book and movie as separate works of art. In Andrew's re-imagining of the story, Caspian has to be older. I agree, it doesn't fit with the book, when everyone thought Ed so much older and fierce than "the boy" Caspian upon first seeing him. Clearly in the movie, Caspian's "boyishness" will not be an issue -- because clearly, he is much older and more fierce than Edmund and probably than Peter, too.
In a way, he doesn't really seem to need the Pevensies. He's already older and a better warrior ... and it isn't as if they have any super powers ... I wonder how this will play out?