The Horse and His Boy

Arvan said:
Brilliant!

Here's another question: should Cor and Corin be played by twins, or should they use the same actor for both?

The problem with twins is that it would be difficult to find two British twins of the right age who can act.
Click to expand...

I think your question can be answered two entirely different ways.

First of all, if they could find one actor who can play both parts (who have very different and distinctive personalities), then great!

But if they can find twin actors who would be a perfect pair, then I'm all for that as well. It just depends on what the casting call would turn up. ;)

They should just remember this: no more Lindsay-Lohan type twin roles. *shudder* Oh, and they could also get two actors who look pretty similar, are about the same height, but aren't twins. They did that with Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman in The Black Swan (I haven't seen it because of the content; I just happen to know about how similar they are), so they could do it with HHB.
 
moonspinner said:
I'm iffy about a prologue that clues in the audience about Cor's origin. Shasta being an Archenland prince (and future King) is a big twist ending. The movies are watched by the fans, true, but there are a lot of movie goers who haven't read the books and it'd be a shame to spoil the story for them. If they must start with a flashback, then I suggest that they show the ship battle between Bar and Lune and the final defeat of Bar but without alluding to the reason for the battle. They could allude that Bar had 'something' that belonged to the King, but not that it was his son or even a person.
Click to expand...

*sorry for double posting*

That is one problem with the opening I have in mind. But I think opening up with a battle would still be a good move....but I don't really think it'd be a huge deal if the audience was left wondering if Shasta was the baby in the battle. Or maybe Shasta and Corin should be on the same boat and we don't know who is who? ;)
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
I think opening up with a battle would still be a good move....but I don't really think it'd be a huge deal if the audience was left wondering if Shasta was the baby in the battle.
Click to expand...

Now that's an idea. We don't need to know Shasta is a prince, or even of noble blood. They could just show him being taken off the ship during the battle, while we don't know what it's about. That gives away even less than the "object of importance" thing. I like it!
 
And they wouldn't have to even mention the prophecy until the end of the movie, like it was in the book. Then after the surprise of Shasta being the prince, the audience would find out what the battle was really about.

And as to the Hermit being in or being out, to me he's somewhat necessary if they keep to the story. Remember, he tells Shasta what to do after he and Aravis arrive at his gate. how else will Shasta know where to find the King?
 
Those suggestions sound really cinematic- so there are ways for moviemakers to make a REALLY EXCITING movie without ruining the story! :rolleyes:
 
I wish I could have been one of the writers for the Chronicles of Narnia. But it isn't meant to be...

You're so right, Aravis.
 
Arvan, you have a similar idea to me regarding the Hermit. His pool would be a great place to cut to and from in the middle of battle. If they somewhat altered his character to be someone a bit more important, like the original person who made the original prophesy regarding Shasta, then that would be even better. It isn't necessary that he even know Shasta is the long-lost prince, just that he is someone who is out to warn Lune of the impending attack.

As for the actors to play Shasta-Cor/Corin, they could do either. Corin isn't in ths story much so the question becomes do they use twins with one of them obviously more used or do split screen in those scenes?

Realistically, we have two boys who really shouldn't look that much like each other. One is the son of a poor fisherman. Maybe not well-fed and always working outside. The other is a prince who doesn't lack for food, who may be a bit spoiled and may also spend a lot of time out of doors. Would tehy be identical?

MrBob
 
They are described as identical, beyond their clothing. Don't forget, Shasta's been eating well after a bit of "raiding", while Corin just got himself beat up pretty badly. Despite this, they're described as being remarkably alike, and before the battle they seem identical.

I don't know how much I'd cut to the Hermit's pool, as it would be a bit annoying in the middle of the action. Though I certainly would do it when Shasta falls to see everyone else's (especially Aravis's) reaction.
 
MrBob said:
Realistically, we have two boys who really shouldn't look that much like each other. One is the son of a poor fisherman. Maybe not well-fed and always working outside. The other is a prince who doesn't lack for food, who may be a bit spoiled and may also spend a lot of time out of doors. Would tehy be identical?
Click to expand...

They looked so alike that Edmund and Susan and the whole Narnia party confused them for each other, remember?
 
I know they were described as identical. I was just imagining the realities of how two boys who lived such vastly different lives would still look so much alike that they could be mistaken for each other. But then, I guess it does happen.

MrBob
 
Realistically, they should not have been identical. Even identical twins who are brought up together aren't really "identical". They don't have the same fingerprints, for one, because unless they are growing up in mirror universes, they will have different life experiences that will mark them physically and mentally. For example, if John scraps his knee and gets a scar or James gets a slightly better haircut.
 
But the actors must appear enough alike that the Pevensies would mistake them for each other. I think actualy twins would be a good fit if they can find them.
 
moonspinner said:
Realistically, they should not have been identical. Even identical twins who are brought up together aren't really "identical". They don't have the same fingerprints, for one, because unless they are growing up in mirror universes, they will have different life experiences that will mark them physically and mentally. For example, if John scraps his knee and gets a scar or James gets a slightly better haircut.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously twins don't have the same fingerprints, but isn't that drawing a really fine line?

They would need to be identical in order for them to recognize each other; I don't care if it's realistic or not, because frankly, Narnia isn't always realistic.
 
inkspot said:
But the actors must appear enough alike that the Pevensies would mistake them for each other. I think actualy twins would be a good fit if they can find them.
Click to expand...

Aravis Kenobi said:
Well, obviously twins don't have the same fingerprints, but isn't that drawing a really fine line?

They would need to be identical in order for them to recognize each other; I don't care if it's realistic or not, because frankly, Narnia isn't always realistic.
Click to expand...

Aravis Kenobi and inkspot, if you read up a little higher, you will see that I already said the same thing here:

moonspinner said:
They looked so alike that Edmund and Susan and the whole Narnia party confused them for each other, remember?
Click to expand...

I was just agreeing with MrBob that in reality, identical twins are not carbon copies of each other. In fictional portrayals though, they are usually portrayed as indistinguishable, even by close family members.
 
Why would they need twins at all?

You're right, of course, the on screen presences of the two characters would need to give the impression of identical twins, but that doesn't mean you really need twins in real life.

All you need is , and all they will likely use is, a very versatile child actor with two different wardrobes. Stick on some CG and maybe tease a little voice inflection change via pitch modulation, and you've got twins. In scenes where they both must be, use a body double or do a double shoot in front of a green screen.

We don't really need twins to play these two. We need one actor capable of playing two people.
 
We already said this. We are debating the appearance of the twins in the final production, and how much alike they should look. We do think it'd be nice to have two separate actors, but we're aware that it's unlikely. But do you know how much time they'd save if they had real twins? No blue-screen or green-screen, no CGI work, no superimposing. And acting is a lot easier with two people than an invisible person or stand-in. Also, the whole thing feels more real.
 
Anyway I like the idea of twins, adds authenticity. I'm not saying they have to be twins, but I think it would be cool. That's all. And Moonspinner, I was agreeing with you; not trying to say I had come up with an original idea.
 
Arvan said:
We already said this. We are debating the appearance of the twins in the final production, and how much alike they should look. We do think it'd be nice to have two separate actors, but we're aware that it's unlikely. But do you know how much time they'd save if they had real twins? No blue-screen or green-screen, no CGI work, no superimposing. And acting is a lot easier with two people than an invisible person or stand-in. Also, the whole thing feels more real.
Click to expand...



When you use kids in movies, there are tons of child labor laws in play. The fewer real actors, the fewer issues they'd face
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top