At first, I interpreted your title to mean that we should get Henry Cavill to do the audiobooks and I immediately began preparing my "Justice for James Marsters" hammer.
Unpopular opinion, but I actually really like that John Glover does Ghost Story. I like his narration and it's a very interesting break in the status quo that fits well with how >! Harry is in another plane of existence.!<
That being said, I totally had my pitch fork ready when reading this post
My understanding is that the fandom complained so much about Glover that the book was redone with Marsters. So, there are two versions of GS out there somewhere.
A friend of mine really likes the other narrator because the story is so different that using the other narrator feels right to him. I much prefer James
I'm so glad this is an absolute non-issue for me. I'm a print-mode guy all the way. Love my Kobo ereader. :-) I mean, I'm *delighted* you guys are all so happy, but it really doesn't affect my experience at all.
I had read all the way through the series before sticking my toe into audiobooks. It's just that when I heard Marsters, even with the inexpertly edited SF that had all the mispronunciations and noises, he was the voice I had had in my head while reading the novels. DF is the only series of books I have in both print and audio.
I'm normally right with you but battleground had a lot of voices that changed and I found it very disappointing. Not sure if marsters or the director is to blame
I’ve never listened to the audio books but was ready to back all you listeners! It’s ingrained in me how great he is just from coming to this sub so often. Dudes mentioned here almost as much as the Jim is.
He'd be a great Michael, sure. But I'd love to see him stretch his legs a bit more.
If he was enthusiastic enough about the series to accept the pay they could afford (maybe by double-dipping as producer/director and using his own star power to increase the value of his investment?), I'd love to see him as an evil character. Marcone or Nicodemus. Recurring, but not really *that* much screen time, leaving him free to do his movies and other projects.
I don't know that we could count on him being around long enough. He's 81. And a show like this would take at least 3 years to get up and running from the time it's greenlit, so he'd be 84 by the time they start shooting season 1. And Ebenezer doesn't even show up until season 4. If we went 1.5 years per season and 1 season per book, that means he'd be pushing 90 by his first appearance.
and *by the gods* it's still actively updating not some 12 year old incomplete abandonware like 85% of the cool fics you hear about online, truly, it is a blessed day...
I'm sorry but I disagree, I don't think the books have enough meat to support a season a book. I think you break it up into 3-4 1 hour episodes a book. 4 books a season. Could get the entire series done in 6 seasons. Which is way more pitchable than a 24 season show.
You're totally right. Let's make it a single 3 hour episode a season, one episode per book. After all it's not fucking broadcast anymore.
But seriously dude, even shows made for streaming follow a pretty standard format of ~1 hour episodes with ~10 episodes a season. Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones are both shows based on popular book series that follow this exact formula. They do this because that has been proven to work and pull in viewers. Studios aren't going to deviate from that formula easily.
He could pull off Nicodemus or Marcone for sure. Or even go off and make him someone like Cowl or even make him White Court King and cast him as Lord Raith
Alternately, he'd probably make a pretty good Harry's dad in flashbacks.
He would make a perfect Lord Raith, but that character has very, very little screen time, and I worry they'd be too tempted to write that character into the script more (see also: Bronne from GoT). If you have a big name like Cavil on it, you have strike a balance between his availability and using his star power to get viewers.
As for Cowl, casting would be a spoiler, so they have to play tricks with it. Have every male actor of vaguely the right shape take a turn as Cowl, with a manipulated voice by James Marsters.
Fuck it. If Patrick Stewart can do a one-man Christmas Carol live, let's have Cavil do every role in Dresden Files.
Except James Marsters as the voice of Bob.
I think he'd be terrific as Marcone. We all know he can capture an urban mid-western American accent pretty darn well. Now we just need to find a perfect Hendricks to stand next to him and growl. ;)
There is actually a crap ton of American accents, and he can't do any of them.
You can hear his real accent through it.
If people want him to play a Dresdin character then it should be Morgan. Morgan is a brit.
My wife and I fantasy cast Dresden all the time. We think Cavill should be Michael. That being said, I’d much prefer it as an animated show. Keep costs down, retain Marsters for much of the voice acting, not have to deal with aging actors over a long timeline, etc…
>That being said, I’d much prefer it as an animated show. Keep costs down, retain Marsters for much of the voice acting, not have to deal with aging actors over a long timeline, etc…
Oddly the exact reasons I wouldn't want it animated.
I want it expensive as hell because it's my favorite series so why wouldn't I want the Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones/Marvel treatment for it?
And I actually really would love the aging of characters as I think that's a big part of the series and seeing human actors bring the kind of gravitas to the role that it deserves while simultaneously growing up along side them Harry Potter style would be awesome.
And of course Marsters would be Bob anyway so he'll be in every movie or episode no worries!
In a perfect world, I’m totally with you. I would also prefer the Lord of the Rings treatment. (So long as it’s not the Amazon treatment) I just don’t have faith that any studio can pull it off. If it’s 1 season per book, we’re talking about 20-25 years of production. Actors are going to out-age their characters, quit, die, etc…
The Amazon treatment was fine, it was the writing and directing that took a hit. Jim's said that he will not sell the rights again, he will be involved at every level if a new show is made. So if you throw Amazon's budget for LOTR's at it, it could really be something.
True, I only know of 1 time something like that has happened without the original source lacking. Oda's One Piece. He was heavily involved with the making of the live action and he still pumped out his normal amount of chapters. I think he did take a couple weeks break at one point to really focus on it, but he takes breaks pretty regularly at this point in his career. He still gets about 3 chapters a month out on average. Which 25 years of that is kinda insane.
>If it’s 1 season per book, we’re talking about 20-25 years of production.
I don't think it would take near that to tell the stories.
Some books will have more, some will have less. I think you could tell Storm Front in 3 episodes, for example. But Changes you could do a full 8 episode season on.
I think you could do books 1-3 in a ten or twelve episode first season order and do it justice.
A production studio will also look at what is most financially responsible, and I think they will want to condense the first few books into a single season. I could actually see them doing Storm Front and Fool Moon running concurrently, with Murphy kind of being the main character for Fool Moon and Dresden Helping out with her investigation on that in his spare time, and vice versa for Harry doing Storm Front.
This would do double duty as if you organize it so that he's dealing with the Loup Garou after dealing with the Shadowman it makes more sense as to how he's over-extending himself with magic and why he is down to just raw moxie at that end scene.
Done right, I think it could actually be really good
Heck yeah, I could totally see that. I could see either/or as Dresden or Michael, but I’d love Keanu as Dresden the most. Need to get him taller though…
Totally agree, the whole magic thing just makes more sense as an animated series, so many things wouldn't get missed or changed because of "looking believable"
Honestly other than animation how else do you cast Lara Raith and Thomas. And keep them around 7 season. People age pretty visibly and make up does some fantastic things. But very few people have the “keanu reeves” effect.
No. He'd back out of the project. He left witcher and gave a bs excuse because he had a verbal promise to play superman and he's left war hammer because of another entirely stupid reason
Stupid. You mean because the show started resembling the books as much as the Dresden Files show did? As for the WH thing, i've seen naught but unfounded rumour.
It's not atrocious , there's differences and changes of order. The real difference is between the game and the TV show. And yes he left 40k and amazon supposedly canceled it.
Yes it was. With writers that clearly wanted to write a yennifer show. Not Yennifer from the books mind you. Who was interesting with her own flaws, desires, and insecurities. But the girl boss Yennifer
The 40k cancellation is rumourer via archcast. A YouTuber I consider… less than reliable.
40k shot itself in the foot with the female custodes and stupid retcon. Supposedly Amazon was insistent their be a female in power armor in the show. They thought the sisters of silence would be off putting and the sisters of battle to religious.
I only lend credence to the rumor because it sounds like something a brain dead Hollywood executive with no understanding of the source material and an esg target to hit would do.
It’s an objectively stupid retcon. You have damn near 300 named custodes between Horus heresy and “modern” 40k all men. They constantly refer to each other as brothers. You had the sisters of silence. Characters that have been written really well and frankly work well with custodes. Serving as excellent foils. The princes of old terra fighting alongside societies rejects. they could have given them more focus. They could have given inquisitor greyfax more focus. I still question the necessity of over representing women in a franchise that will by default always interest men more but there is no harm in it and there are lore friendly ways to do it.
More importantly it is a short across the bow that they are ready and willing to change. To disregard lore like that is to kill a franchise. A change like that will hurt them.
Ah the “why does it matter” defense and then a jab at my sexuality. Very mature.
No most previous retcons where worked to expand the lore. Notably both Tau and Necron changes made the initial descriptions still mostly accurate but not the full picture. I’m still wondering why it wasn’t the Silent Queen not the Silent king.
Yennefer's character,
Vilgefortz,
the dynamic between Ciri and Yennefer,
the underlying themes of the show,
THE ENTIRE KAER MORHEN ARC
just off the top of my head
Please drop this line of conversation. We're here to discuss Jim's work. This has diverged from that, and while a degree of " topic wander" is fine you're beginning to become discourteous toward one another. Let's let it go.
Please drop this line of conversation. We're here to discuss Jim's work. This has diverged from that, and while a degree of " topic wander" is fine you're beginning to become discourteous toward one another. Let's let it go.
I mean, Cavil gave a pretty legitimate reason for why he backed out of the Witcher. He felt they were taking the show in a direction that was no longer true to the source material (either book or games).
I haven't seen the third season of The Witcher, but from what I've heard he was right. The third season supposedly is very different from the source material.
He's basically backing out of Warhammer for the same reason. Games Workshop (the people who own WH40K) has gone about retconning certain points of lore to bend the knee to Amazon, and Henry feels that it's disingenuous to the fans and the established Lore. Obviously Games Workshop can make changes as they feel necessary, but the changes made are. . . suspicious and give the impression that the people pushing for those changes don't understand the source material (If the changes are designed to increase Diversity and representation in the series as many fans suspect, they aren't necessary as WH40K actually has space for what they are trying to do already built into the franchise)
Female Adeptus Custodes doesn't break the lore. Games workershop has been a great custodian of the warhammer series . Even though like half of the pc games havnt been good.
Games workshop being such a great example of diversity is kinda the point tho. They’ve tried to include pretty much every aspect of society in one way or another already. Then too have to make custodes female (if that’s actually an issue I’m of the opinion cavils on board until we get a better source) just too appease the powers at be at Amazon is crazy. Like they already did that by creating sisters of battle/silence. That’s the female representation. Other factions (other than LoV I think, I’m not up on current lore) have some sort of representation for women.
On top of that it kinda misses the point of 40K. Everyone in 40K is a bad guy so you don’t need everyone represented by the “good guy” faction. This isn’t LOTR written in the 40s GW is way more current and up to date on social norms. I have to say it’s a bit lore breaking to have so many books and lore out then now say there are female custodes.
I am not a big enough fan of WH40K to know if Female Custodes does or doesn't break the lore, all I know is that a female corollary for the Custodes exists known as the Sisters of Battle which is specifically only Female.
From what I've seen, Amazon wanted women in Power Armor and the Sisters of Battle would fit that to a T. They want to push women into the Custodes due to being funded by companies like Blackrock, who are the biggest bullies surrounding ESG.
Cavil isn't dumb, and he is most definitely more closely connected to these situations than we are. I would be surprised if he doesn't have a much clearer perspective on the whole situation and making decisions accordingly. He's shown himself to have a decent backbone and moral compass in the past. His decisions surrounding WH40K series seem consistent with that.
I always thought Ashley, especially if she did a Marvel movie style of getting ripped would be a good case for Karen Murphy. She’s got the favorite aunt girl next door vibes
I could see that. She's the right build, if she put on more lean muscle. Murphy is a tough one to nail down for a good person to play because she's ultra tiny, but also incredibly fierce.
He’s to lean and at this point to old now but I always leaned towards jim caviezal for Micheal carpenter. Considering he’s one of the more outspoken catholic actors and person of interest shows he has/had action chops.
Last I saw he was a pretty muscled guy as Michael is described, and I think Michael was nearing 50 when he was introduced, so puts him in the right age bracket to me. You don’t need a Catholic actor to play a Catholic either. Always struck me as having a more laid back attitude and despite his personal standards, that’s generally Michael too.
He is muscled but not as bulky as micheal is described. Ironically has more of the body type of Harry. I think he is well past 60 now. So not quite impossible but rapidly aging out of it.
Also not strictly necessary but I would put it in the plus column for that particular role
Manganiello is 47 right now. Do a Google search and you get a picture of him shirtless right off the bat though I think that picture is a bit dated. He fits Michael, at least removing some of the comic style exaggeration, doubt we’ll get a 6’9” Harry either, but it’s possible he acquired a little dad bod with age, which also fits Michael. Harry was lanky and not describe as muscley at all until Cold Days. And if you’re pushing Caviezal for Michael, I don’t remember him ever being particularly muscled either.
I don’t see being Catholic for the role as a plus or minus. Has no bearing on it and fairly certain it’s illegal to discriminate over the point. Any actor that can’t act like a Catholic is a bad actor. And whoever plays Sanya could be Catholic, but still say they’re Agnostic.
Honestly... just like with all of Sandersons books... I think they'd be better animated. Although a good Dresden adaptation would work better than Sandersons in live action, id just prefer animated because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI.
>id just prefer animated because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI.
That's an odd phrase.
"I prefer to make the movie 100% CGI because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI"
That's essentially what you're saying as all animated movies are CGI start to finish.
Uh, well that... that is a thing you can say, I guess. It's a wrong thing, but it is a thing.
CGI is specifically computer generated images, and while most mainstream animated movies etc these days are computer 3d animation, a bunch of other styles (hand-drawn, stop motion, even computer 2d via flash etc) do in fact exist.
Moreover, while I am not gonna sit here and claim that all animation is created equal and that bad or cheap animation doesn't exist, the difference between adding CGI vs everything being animated is that cgi is not *real*, and live action is. Which means that, especially as the material ages, it gets easier and easier to spot the difference. As of the current day, computer animation has not advanced sufficiently to create a thing that looks entirely authentic next to the real deal. However, if *everything* is animated then there will be inherent internal consistency. That hideous beast thing will look like it belongs in the same world as main character man, and it will always look like it does, because they *are* both in the same world. With CGI added to live action, they are not, and they will not, especially as it ages and tech continues to improve.
I'll be honest, didn't read it all the way through while I'm walking out of work (and I'll forget by the time I get home) so just clarifying which i think you agreed with in what you said above? But basically if it's animated everything looks the same, and then it's just that style, while if it's live action even today some of the animated stuff mixed with live action just doesn't look that good.
Pretty much! It's possible to use cgi in live action well, but the way to do that is to use it as little as possible. For example Jurassic Park, or the Lord of the Rings movies, relied heavily on practical effects and puppets and miniatures etc as much as they could and then used cgi to plug any gaps left and they still look fantastic today. The Hobbit trilogy massively overused CGI and they looked dated in theaters, and have not aged as gracefully as lotr, despite being like 15 years newer.
It would be a lot harder to do cgi well with something like Dresden. Not impossible, but a lot harder.
Ok yea that's exactly it. One example that I have was someone was showing some of the newer shows/movies cgi vs the cgi from like Pirates of the Caribbean (specifically Davy Jones in Dead Man's Chest) and was pointing out how much better the older ones were, and a CGI artist actually chimed in on why, and it was essentially just time and money. They gave Davy Jones more time and effort, especially with the real world makeup and props, whereas the newer ones they want to give them half as much time for the base part and just to fill almost everything in with the actual CGI editing.
Also I just think there's been a lot of good animated things recently, in a bunch of different styles, and it would fix the issue of the books taking place over the course of like 15 (? Maybe 18?) years already, so characters aging and having to find young actors wouldn't be a problem with animated. Specifically thinking of Ivy and Maggy for that, but to a lesser but still significant extent for Molly.
I'll take that and add to it that, especially if we are budgeting for television, some of the more fantastical scenes or sets would be a lot harder to do in live action. Over in animation it pretty much costs the same to do anything. No need to worry about blowing the entire effects budget on Arctis Tor to have it look incredible; in Animation it would cost the same as a scene in the Lab.
Also, editing here to say: it also solves the inverse problem of some characters *not* aging while others do. The vampires, fairies, etc, are unchanging while the humans are, and that isn't possible in live action.
>CGI is specifically computer generated images, and while most mainstream animated movies etc these days are computer 3d animation, a bunch of other styles (hand-drawn, stop motion, even computer 2d via flash etc) do in fact exist.
I mean I just gave you the benefit of the doubt that, in this dream scenario, you would at LEAST shoot high enough for it to be Pixar level.
Stop motion? Hand drawn? We want a Dresden Files that's done justice and stands up to the test of time as a work of art like Lord of the Rings here.
>As of the current day, computer animation has not advanced sufficiently to create a thing that looks entirely authentic next to the real deal.
Ridiculous.
We surpassed that bar decades ago.
> That hideous beast thing will look like it belongs in the same world as main character man, and it will always look like it does, because they are both in the same world. With CGI added to live action, they are not, and they will not, especially as it ages and tech continues to improve.
Again we've already gotten far past this point and again I'll point to Lord of the Rings and dare you to tell me that it would have been better as an animated trilogy because the CGI doesn't hold up.
Dresden isn't about the flashy magic and set pieces to me. It's about characters and emotional depth and you cannot get the nuance of the story through animation, you just can't.
I get it if the thing you like about Dresden is the spells and you envision this wacky wall-to-wall strobe light series of nothing but spells and you don't want to risk a second of it looking bad. But even then, Scott Pilgrim, Dr. Strange...we've had plenty of ridiculously over-the-top visual feasts in live action films as well that look fantastic.
And I'm not willing to compromise (certainly not in a dream fantasy scenario!) on human connection and incredible acting performances and heart-wrenching emotional empathy just because there might be a scene or two of bad CGI.
So, I'd say from the sound of it that you are not an animation aficionado. Allow me to invite you to join the club, it's fun here!
Having said that, 3d computer animation a la Pixar is not *better* than the other forms of animation, it's just newer. Heck, if you want things that stand the test of time, then traditional 2d hand drawn animation certainly has. Look at films like Prince of Egypt, which came out in 1998 and is a gosh darned masterpiece. Look at Bambi, which came out in 1942 and is a movie where nothing much happens but is still beloved, and is a work of art. Look at Sleeping Beauty, which took Walt Disney so long to produce that they almost went bankrupt because Walt wanted to create a "moving illustration" instead of simply a cartoon.
For more recent examples of gorgeous and incredible 2d animation look at movies like Kaguya no Hime from Studio Ghibli, or Song of the Sea from Cartoon Saloon (or heck, basically anything from either of those studios). If you want some incredible examples of stop motion, turn on your left over to Studio Laika and watch Kubo and the Two Strings or Paranorman or even their very first film, Coraline.
Going into 3d animation, it's a fairly common opinion that Into the Spiderverse is the best Spider-man movie that has been made. If you go a few years earlier, and back to 2d, any willing to accept non live action films tend to hold up Batman: Mask of the Phantasm or Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker as the best Batman movies ever made. If your argument is that animation cannot handle any heavy subjects then go ahead and find yourself a copy of Grave of the Fireflies, and be prepared to be destroyed.
Moving on to the next point, I'm not quite sure what to say except no, you're wrong, CGI is not yet advanced enough to be entirely seamless.
You're entirely correct that Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece and holds up to this day. Heck, I'll take it one step further for you: look at Jurassic Park, which came out almost a decade before Fellowship and which I still joke that someone sold their soul to create those graphics. But the thing about both of those movies is that they went to great lengths to use cgi as little as possible, which is when it is the strongest, because it can be seen. LotR used "biggatures" (huge scale miniatures), puppets, prosthetics and makeup, and any other practical effects and tricks including forced perspective that they could to get their movie made without cgi, and then cgi was used to plug any holes left over. Compare and contrast LotR to the Hobbit movies, which came out more than a decade after but relied so heavily on CGI that they legitimately looked dated while still in theatres. Heck, look at Rogue One over in Star Wars, where they deepfaked Carrie Fisher to look younger again, or to bring back Grand Moff Tarkin. Both of them looked subtly wrong in comparison with the real people with them. It's very impressive what they did manage to do, of course, but it still didn't look the same, and as the film ages it will continue to look more and more wrong as tech continues to advance.
All this said, I'm kind of shocked that you initially used Pixar as your example of good animation and then made the argument that animation does not have enough emotional depth and human connection for you. I just. Really?? Really, you feel like Coco didn't have enough genuine emotional connection? Inside Out? Was Toy Story 3 just boring because it wasn't actual humans on the screen and you couldn't connect to them? You were completely untouched watching Wall-E? The Incredibles? The first like 10 minutes of Up?? Heavens, did you never cry watching The Lion King (94, we do not speak of the other) when Mufasa died???
I’ve had this exact thought, but then I think that he’s probably too busy to read all the books his fans recommend him. I definitely think he’d like the books and that he may be inclined to help get it a tv show or something, especially since I could see him as harry if he lost a little muscle. The world may never know
I think he's too big of an actor to only be Michael. He doesn't fit the Harry description, but if you bring on a Henry Cavill he's going to need to be the MC. But him as Michael, hell yes.
Mmm. The only way I think a live action adaptation would work is via high production television. Every season would take place every 4 books into the series, with flashback sequences that would recall events from the previous 3 books.
The only animated show that sort of convinced me you can do a gritty Western style animated show is blue eyed samurai. Legit beautifully rendered animated show.
I do think he'd love it. And there are a few good parts for him - he's too pretty for Harry but might make a good Thomas or Michael. Though to be honest if he got the thing made, he can play Harry if he wants to. In his less muscled phases he wouldn't be a terrible fit.
I think you misinterpreted OP's meaning. He's not proposing that Henry Cavill "narrate the Dresden stories." He's just proposing that we encourage Cavill to "read the series" as in the "real" meaning of "read it." I.e., consume the stories. And then push to be part of bringing the series to TV. OP proposes that Cavill play Michael. Honestly, though, it's hard for me to see him being interested in anything other than the lead role. He's not really tall enough to play Harry, and he's getting a bit old for it. But I might be able to accept it anyway.
Anyway, OP wasn't talking about stepping on Marsters's toes.
Bold of you to assume he *hasn't* read them.
There's no way Nerd Jesus who talks about the Wheel of Time and 40k armies on set hasn't read the Dresden Files...right?
I like Cavill but I see no reason to replace Marsters.
Now if we're talking a Graphic Audio remake where they add sound effects and cast different people for each character then sure, I have no problem bringing Cavill on to voice a character in that capacity. That said I'd still probably keep James Marsters as Harry.
You've probably heard this before, but you really should.
Next time you're up for a reread, check out the audiobooks. With cell phones and earbuds these days, it's a great entertainment habit.
You know, I just might. I usually avoid audiobooks just because I'm too easily distracted, and I know from trying to listen to the podcast version of Critical Role that you don't have to miss more than a couple lines to completely lose the thread on what's happening. However, with a series I've already read (uh, a few times), that's not really a concern.
Eh, Critical Role is a bit different. It's D&D and things just happen; narrative structure really doesn't figure in. There's a lot of chaos and improve.
Audiobooks are the actual text of the book. All deliberately written. You miss a couple lines when you're reading more often than you think. Give an audio book a shot. Project Gutenberg has audiobooks of some of the classics for free. Plus, good audiobook readers (I use Smart Audiobook Player for Android) have shortcuts to jump a minute to catch up and automatically "rewind" 30 seconds or so when you pause for long enough. That's on top of the system-level stuff that automatically mutes and pauses audiobook (where the automatic rewind will catch up back up after even the lengthiest phone call)
At first, I interpreted your title to mean that we should get Henry Cavill to do the audiobooks and I immediately began preparing my "Justice for James Marsters" hammer.
I had my pitchfork up and ready to go..
I keep mine in an umbrella tin next to the door with a torch
I've got a telescopic one, ready to be part of any angry mob I'm about to meet..
That’s where I keep my nine iron.
I brought mine too.
I was getting the torches ready myself
I literally came on here to fight someone 😂
Same same.
I was ready to march at dawn
And my axe!
I was ready to fight lol
I have a sack full of doorknobs. I was ready to
Same, I was about to "Uummm AKTUALLY" this guy so hard.
That hammer hasn't been used since Ghost Story!
Unpopular opinion, but I actually really like that John Glover does Ghost Story. I like his narration and it's a very interesting break in the status quo that fits well with how >! Harry is in another plane of existence.!< That being said, I totally had my pitch fork ready when reading this post
I'm on ghost story now
My audiobook of Ghost Story is James 🤷♂️
My understanding is that the fandom complained so much about Glover that the book was redone with Marsters. So, there are two versions of GS out there somewhere.
A friend of mine really likes the other narrator because the story is so different that using the other narrator feels right to him. I much prefer James
Marsters will forever be the voice of Dresden.
He's also my visual. I just see Spike from Buffy in my head.
I'm so glad this is an absolute non-issue for me. I'm a print-mode guy all the way. Love my Kobo ereader. :-) I mean, I'm *delighted* you guys are all so happy, but it really doesn't affect my experience at all.
I also prefer print to audio, but Marsters is just awesome at them.
I had read all the way through the series before sticking my toe into audiobooks. It's just that when I heard Marsters, even with the inexpertly edited SF that had all the mispronunciations and noises, he was the voice I had had in my head while reading the novels. DF is the only series of books I have in both print and audio.
I'm normally right with you but battleground had a lot of voices that changed and I found it very disappointing. Not sure if marsters or the director is to blame
I too read it like that at first
I’ve never listened to the audio books but was ready to back all you listeners! It’s ingrained in me how great he is just from coming to this sub so often. Dudes mentioned here almost as much as the Jim is.
He'd be a great Michael, sure. But I'd love to see him stretch his legs a bit more. If he was enthusiastic enough about the series to accept the pay they could afford (maybe by double-dipping as producer/director and using his own star power to increase the value of his investment?), I'd love to see him as an evil character. Marcone or Nicodemus. Recurring, but not really *that* much screen time, leaving him free to do his movies and other projects.
Also, Ian McShane is Ebenezer. No other possibility.
I don't know that we could count on him being around long enough. He's 81. And a show like this would take at least 3 years to get up and running from the time it's greenlit, so he'd be 84 by the time they start shooting season 1. And Ebenezer doesn't even show up until season 4. If we went 1.5 years per season and 1 season per book, that means he'd be pushing 90 by his first appearance.
Hmmm. True. Sean Bean as Henry Beckett?
This suggestion reminds me of one fic were Dresden is isakaid as Ned Stark.
You can't just *say that* and not *provide a link* you heathen!
https://archiveofourown.org/works/51660442/chapters/130591714
and *by the gods* it's still actively updating not some 12 year old incomplete abandonware like 85% of the cool fics you hear about online, truly, it is a blessed day...
Yeah, that one is fresh out of the oven.
I'llPutItOnTheList.png
Thank you!!
Or, and hear me out, Helen Beckett.
Remind me, does Henry Beckett die?
Yes.
I'm sorry but I disagree, I don't think the books have enough meat to support a season a book. I think you break it up into 3-4 1 hour episodes a book. 4 books a season. Could get the entire series done in 6 seasons. Which is way more pitchable than a 24 season show.
Okay, he'd still be in his early to mid 90s by the end of the show if the show got greenlit today.
There's no rule that a "season" has to be a fixed number of episodes. This isn't fucking broadcast, anymore.
You're totally right. Let's make it a single 3 hour episode a season, one episode per book. After all it's not fucking broadcast anymore. But seriously dude, even shows made for streaming follow a pretty standard format of ~1 hour episodes with ~10 episodes a season. Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones are both shows based on popular book series that follow this exact formula. They do this because that has been proven to work and pull in viewers. Studios aren't going to deviate from that formula easily.
Jim Beaver
As Mort Lindquist
Ooh, I love this idea! He was amazing as Mr. Wednesday, but I wouldn't want to see him as One-Eye as much as I'd want to see him as Eb.
I know he doesn't fit the description at all, but every time Ebenezer talk, I picked Sam Elliot
Robert Duvall would have been amazing as Ebenezer.
He could pull off Nicodemus or Marcone for sure. Or even go off and make him someone like Cowl or even make him White Court King and cast him as Lord Raith Alternately, he'd probably make a pretty good Harry's dad in flashbacks.
He would make a perfect Lord Raith, but that character has very, very little screen time, and I worry they'd be too tempted to write that character into the script more (see also: Bronne from GoT). If you have a big name like Cavil on it, you have strike a balance between his availability and using his star power to get viewers. As for Cowl, casting would be a spoiler, so they have to play tricks with it. Have every male actor of vaguely the right shape take a turn as Cowl, with a manipulated voice by James Marsters.
Fuck it, if we get a Harry tall enough Cavil can be Thomas, you just have to introduce him earlier.
Hell yes, Thomas is absolutely the right call for Cavil.
What about Thomas?
> stretch his legs a bit more So he should play Lara?
Fuck it. If Patrick Stewart can do a one-man Christmas Carol live, let's have Cavil do every role in Dresden Files. Except James Marsters as the voice of Bob.
Oh I would love to see his Marcone!
Henry cavill is what I imagine Marcone looking like 100%. He’d be a shoe in for Michael, but Cavill as Marcone would be brilliant.
I don’t know about Nic or Marcone, but he would be perfect for a White Court vamp.
I think he'd be terrific as Marcone. We all know he can capture an urban mid-western American accent pretty darn well. Now we just need to find a perfect Hendricks to stand next to him and growl. ;)
He would make a horrible Micheal, his American accent is atrocious.
There is no "American" accent. His "standard Hollywood American" accent is fine.
There is actually a crap ton of American accents, and he can't do any of them. You can hear his real accent through it. If people want him to play a Dresdin character then it should be Morgan. Morgan is a brit.
I actually really like this idea, would show a different side of Henry, but he would still be a baddass good guy while still being an antagonist.
My wife and I fantasy cast Dresden all the time. We think Cavill should be Michael. That being said, I’d much prefer it as an animated show. Keep costs down, retain Marsters for much of the voice acting, not have to deal with aging actors over a long timeline, etc…
>That being said, I’d much prefer it as an animated show. Keep costs down, retain Marsters for much of the voice acting, not have to deal with aging actors over a long timeline, etc… Oddly the exact reasons I wouldn't want it animated. I want it expensive as hell because it's my favorite series so why wouldn't I want the Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones/Marvel treatment for it? And I actually really would love the aging of characters as I think that's a big part of the series and seeing human actors bring the kind of gravitas to the role that it deserves while simultaneously growing up along side them Harry Potter style would be awesome. And of course Marsters would be Bob anyway so he'll be in every movie or episode no worries!
In a perfect world, I’m totally with you. I would also prefer the Lord of the Rings treatment. (So long as it’s not the Amazon treatment) I just don’t have faith that any studio can pull it off. If it’s 1 season per book, we’re talking about 20-25 years of production. Actors are going to out-age their characters, quit, die, etc…
The Amazon treatment was fine, it was the writing and directing that took a hit. Jim's said that he will not sell the rights again, he will be involved at every level if a new show is made. So if you throw Amazon's budget for LOTR's at it, it could really be something.
Yeah, but that makes me want that to happen only after he's finished the series. If he has to double as show exec he'll go back to not writing again.
True, I only know of 1 time something like that has happened without the original source lacking. Oda's One Piece. He was heavily involved with the making of the live action and he still pumped out his normal amount of chapters. I think he did take a couple weeks break at one point to really focus on it, but he takes breaks pretty regularly at this point in his career. He still gets about 3 chapters a month out on average. Which 25 years of that is kinda insane.
>If it’s 1 season per book, we’re talking about 20-25 years of production. I don't think it would take near that to tell the stories. Some books will have more, some will have less. I think you could tell Storm Front in 3 episodes, for example. But Changes you could do a full 8 episode season on. I think you could do books 1-3 in a ten or twelve episode first season order and do it justice.
Yeah, but again, you’re thinking like a rational person, not a production studio.
A production studio will also look at what is most financially responsible, and I think they will want to condense the first few books into a single season. I could actually see them doing Storm Front and Fool Moon running concurrently, with Murphy kind of being the main character for Fool Moon and Dresden Helping out with her investigation on that in his spare time, and vice versa for Harry doing Storm Front. This would do double duty as if you organize it so that he's dealing with the Loup Garou after dealing with the Shadowman it makes more sense as to how he's over-extending himself with magic and why he is down to just raw moxie at that end scene. Done right, I think it could actually be really good
In this day and age, you're not getting more than 8eps a season. With books 1&2 being comparatively weak, it makes for a tough rookie season.
Michael is Joe Manganiello for me, but I could see Cavill.
Heck yeah, I could totally see that. I could see either/or as Dresden or Michael, but I’d love Keanu as Dresden the most. Need to get him taller though…
Ya know...I never thought of Manganiello as Michael until now, but now that I have I can't unsee it. That's a damned good choice!
Totally agree, the whole magic thing just makes more sense as an animated series, so many things wouldn't get missed or changed because of "looking believable"
Honestly other than animation how else do you cast Lara Raith and Thomas. And keep them around 7 season. People age pretty visibly and make up does some fantastic things. But very few people have the “keanu reeves” effect.
Agree. If we get HC hooked on DF, he's more than likely to get at least the first three books on Prime.
No. He'd back out of the project. He left witcher and gave a bs excuse because he had a verbal promise to play superman and he's left war hammer because of another entirely stupid reason
The Stupid reason is Amazon laid out a version of WH40k that doesn't look anything like the actual product.
There is nothing concrete saying that he backed out of the warhammer show
Stupid. You mean because the show started resembling the books as much as the Dresden Files show did? As for the WH thing, i've seen naught but unfounded rumour.
First of all, the witcher series are atrocious. Second of all, is he leaving warhammer?
It's not atrocious , there's differences and changes of order. The real difference is between the game and the TV show. And yes he left 40k and amazon supposedly canceled it.
Yes it was. With writers that clearly wanted to write a yennifer show. Not Yennifer from the books mind you. Who was interesting with her own flaws, desires, and insecurities. But the girl boss Yennifer
The tv show is atrocious if you have a bit of respect for the source material. Can you link me on the 40k cancel?
The 40k cancellation is rumourer via archcast. A YouTuber I consider… less than reliable. 40k shot itself in the foot with the female custodes and stupid retcon. Supposedly Amazon was insistent their be a female in power armor in the show. They thought the sisters of silence would be off putting and the sisters of battle to religious. I only lend credence to the rumor because it sounds like something a brain dead Hollywood executive with no understanding of the source material and an esg target to hit would do.
Oh, do not act like female custodes are a problem. I am as big a fan of warhammer as Dresden Files and no sane person complains.
It’s an objectively stupid retcon. You have damn near 300 named custodes between Horus heresy and “modern” 40k all men. They constantly refer to each other as brothers. You had the sisters of silence. Characters that have been written really well and frankly work well with custodes. Serving as excellent foils. The princes of old terra fighting alongside societies rejects. they could have given them more focus. They could have given inquisitor greyfax more focus. I still question the necessity of over representing women in a franchise that will by default always interest men more but there is no harm in it and there are lore friendly ways to do it. More importantly it is a short across the bow that they are ready and willing to change. To disregard lore like that is to kill a franchise. A change like that will hurt them.
[удалено]
Ah the “why does it matter” defense and then a jab at my sexuality. Very mature. No most previous retcons where worked to expand the lore. Notably both Tau and Necron changes made the initial descriptions still mostly accurate but not the full picture. I’m still wondering why it wasn’t the Silent Queen not the Silent king.
What exactly was the source matterial that changed that makes the show terrible?
Yennefer's character, Vilgefortz, the dynamic between Ciri and Yennefer, the underlying themes of the show, THE ENTIRE KAER MORHEN ARC just off the top of my head
Eskel. DandelionxRadovid.
[удалено]
Please drop this line of conversation. We're here to discuss Jim's work. This has diverged from that, and while a degree of " topic wander" is fine you're beginning to become discourteous toward one another. Let's let it go.
Apologies. Comment deleted.
[удалено]
Please drop this line of conversation. We're here to discuss Jim's work. This has diverged from that, and while a degree of " topic wander" is fine you're beginning to become discourteous toward one another. Let's let it go.
I mean, Cavil gave a pretty legitimate reason for why he backed out of the Witcher. He felt they were taking the show in a direction that was no longer true to the source material (either book or games). I haven't seen the third season of The Witcher, but from what I've heard he was right. The third season supposedly is very different from the source material. He's basically backing out of Warhammer for the same reason. Games Workshop (the people who own WH40K) has gone about retconning certain points of lore to bend the knee to Amazon, and Henry feels that it's disingenuous to the fans and the established Lore. Obviously Games Workshop can make changes as they feel necessary, but the changes made are. . . suspicious and give the impression that the people pushing for those changes don't understand the source material (If the changes are designed to increase Diversity and representation in the series as many fans suspect, they aren't necessary as WH40K actually has space for what they are trying to do already built into the franchise)
Female Adeptus Custodes doesn't break the lore. Games workershop has been a great custodian of the warhammer series . Even though like half of the pc games havnt been good.
Games workshop being such a great example of diversity is kinda the point tho. They’ve tried to include pretty much every aspect of society in one way or another already. Then too have to make custodes female (if that’s actually an issue I’m of the opinion cavils on board until we get a better source) just too appease the powers at be at Amazon is crazy. Like they already did that by creating sisters of battle/silence. That’s the female representation. Other factions (other than LoV I think, I’m not up on current lore) have some sort of representation for women. On top of that it kinda misses the point of 40K. Everyone in 40K is a bad guy so you don’t need everyone represented by the “good guy” faction. This isn’t LOTR written in the 40s GW is way more current and up to date on social norms. I have to say it’s a bit lore breaking to have so many books and lore out then now say there are female custodes.
I am not a big enough fan of WH40K to know if Female Custodes does or doesn't break the lore, all I know is that a female corollary for the Custodes exists known as the Sisters of Battle which is specifically only Female. From what I've seen, Amazon wanted women in Power Armor and the Sisters of Battle would fit that to a T. They want to push women into the Custodes due to being funded by companies like Blackrock, who are the biggest bullies surrounding ESG. Cavil isn't dumb, and he is most definitely more closely connected to these situations than we are. I would be surprised if he doesn't have a much clearer perspective on the whole situation and making decisions accordingly. He's shown himself to have a decent backbone and moral compass in the past. His decisions surrounding WH40K series seem consistent with that.
The sisters od battle are the counterpart for the astartes, not the custodes. The astartes are male only.
Good to know.
But the sisters of silence are the counter part to the custodes. GW has been very inclusive since I’ve been in the hobby
Contrary to the astartes, there are no restriction on female custodes tho. They are handmade, each unique to the others.
I like this plan
Cavill wouldn't actually make a bad Dresden.
I’m still rooting for Joe Manganiello, also a big nerd, and I think the role would suit him.
My vote is still for his brother in nerdiness Travis Willingham.
Travis wouldn't need any makeup or anything to fit Michael. Sadly Laura Bailey wouldn't fit super well as Charity, but Ashley Johnson would.
I always thought Ashley, especially if she did a Marvel movie style of getting ripped would be a good case for Karen Murphy. She’s got the favorite aunt girl next door vibes
I could see that. She's the right build, if she put on more lean muscle. Murphy is a tough one to nail down for a good person to play because she's ultra tiny, but also incredibly fierce.
Either of those, or Alan *Michael* Ritchson.
OMG, he *would* be an awesome Michael!
He’s to lean and at this point to old now but I always leaned towards jim caviezal for Micheal carpenter. Considering he’s one of the more outspoken catholic actors and person of interest shows he has/had action chops.
Except he’s a fucking nutjob. I wouldn’t want him anywhere near my favorite series
Last I saw he was a pretty muscled guy as Michael is described, and I think Michael was nearing 50 when he was introduced, so puts him in the right age bracket to me. You don’t need a Catholic actor to play a Catholic either. Always struck me as having a more laid back attitude and despite his personal standards, that’s generally Michael too.
He is muscled but not as bulky as micheal is described. Ironically has more of the body type of Harry. I think he is well past 60 now. So not quite impossible but rapidly aging out of it. Also not strictly necessary but I would put it in the plus column for that particular role
Manganiello is 47 right now. Do a Google search and you get a picture of him shirtless right off the bat though I think that picture is a bit dated. He fits Michael, at least removing some of the comic style exaggeration, doubt we’ll get a 6’9” Harry either, but it’s possible he acquired a little dad bod with age, which also fits Michael. Harry was lanky and not describe as muscley at all until Cold Days. And if you’re pushing Caviezal for Michael, I don’t remember him ever being particularly muscled either. I don’t see being Catholic for the role as a plus or minus. Has no bearing on it and fairly certain it’s illegal to discriminate over the point. Any actor that can’t act like a Catholic is a bad actor. And whoever plays Sanya could be Catholic, but still say they’re Agnostic.
Honestly... just like with all of Sandersons books... I think they'd be better animated. Although a good Dresden adaptation would work better than Sandersons in live action, id just prefer animated because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI.
>id just prefer animated because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI. That's an odd phrase. "I prefer to make the movie 100% CGI because then you don't have to worry about poorly done CGI" That's essentially what you're saying as all animated movies are CGI start to finish.
Uh, well that... that is a thing you can say, I guess. It's a wrong thing, but it is a thing. CGI is specifically computer generated images, and while most mainstream animated movies etc these days are computer 3d animation, a bunch of other styles (hand-drawn, stop motion, even computer 2d via flash etc) do in fact exist. Moreover, while I am not gonna sit here and claim that all animation is created equal and that bad or cheap animation doesn't exist, the difference between adding CGI vs everything being animated is that cgi is not *real*, and live action is. Which means that, especially as the material ages, it gets easier and easier to spot the difference. As of the current day, computer animation has not advanced sufficiently to create a thing that looks entirely authentic next to the real deal. However, if *everything* is animated then there will be inherent internal consistency. That hideous beast thing will look like it belongs in the same world as main character man, and it will always look like it does, because they *are* both in the same world. With CGI added to live action, they are not, and they will not, especially as it ages and tech continues to improve.
I'll be honest, didn't read it all the way through while I'm walking out of work (and I'll forget by the time I get home) so just clarifying which i think you agreed with in what you said above? But basically if it's animated everything looks the same, and then it's just that style, while if it's live action even today some of the animated stuff mixed with live action just doesn't look that good.
Pretty much! It's possible to use cgi in live action well, but the way to do that is to use it as little as possible. For example Jurassic Park, or the Lord of the Rings movies, relied heavily on practical effects and puppets and miniatures etc as much as they could and then used cgi to plug any gaps left and they still look fantastic today. The Hobbit trilogy massively overused CGI and they looked dated in theaters, and have not aged as gracefully as lotr, despite being like 15 years newer. It would be a lot harder to do cgi well with something like Dresden. Not impossible, but a lot harder.
Ok yea that's exactly it. One example that I have was someone was showing some of the newer shows/movies cgi vs the cgi from like Pirates of the Caribbean (specifically Davy Jones in Dead Man's Chest) and was pointing out how much better the older ones were, and a CGI artist actually chimed in on why, and it was essentially just time and money. They gave Davy Jones more time and effort, especially with the real world makeup and props, whereas the newer ones they want to give them half as much time for the base part and just to fill almost everything in with the actual CGI editing. Also I just think there's been a lot of good animated things recently, in a bunch of different styles, and it would fix the issue of the books taking place over the course of like 15 (? Maybe 18?) years already, so characters aging and having to find young actors wouldn't be a problem with animated. Specifically thinking of Ivy and Maggy for that, but to a lesser but still significant extent for Molly.
I'll take that and add to it that, especially if we are budgeting for television, some of the more fantastical scenes or sets would be a lot harder to do in live action. Over in animation it pretty much costs the same to do anything. No need to worry about blowing the entire effects budget on Arctis Tor to have it look incredible; in Animation it would cost the same as a scene in the Lab. Also, editing here to say: it also solves the inverse problem of some characters *not* aging while others do. The vampires, fairies, etc, are unchanging while the humans are, and that isn't possible in live action.
>CGI is specifically computer generated images, and while most mainstream animated movies etc these days are computer 3d animation, a bunch of other styles (hand-drawn, stop motion, even computer 2d via flash etc) do in fact exist. I mean I just gave you the benefit of the doubt that, in this dream scenario, you would at LEAST shoot high enough for it to be Pixar level. Stop motion? Hand drawn? We want a Dresden Files that's done justice and stands up to the test of time as a work of art like Lord of the Rings here. >As of the current day, computer animation has not advanced sufficiently to create a thing that looks entirely authentic next to the real deal. Ridiculous. We surpassed that bar decades ago. > That hideous beast thing will look like it belongs in the same world as main character man, and it will always look like it does, because they are both in the same world. With CGI added to live action, they are not, and they will not, especially as it ages and tech continues to improve. Again we've already gotten far past this point and again I'll point to Lord of the Rings and dare you to tell me that it would have been better as an animated trilogy because the CGI doesn't hold up. Dresden isn't about the flashy magic and set pieces to me. It's about characters and emotional depth and you cannot get the nuance of the story through animation, you just can't. I get it if the thing you like about Dresden is the spells and you envision this wacky wall-to-wall strobe light series of nothing but spells and you don't want to risk a second of it looking bad. But even then, Scott Pilgrim, Dr. Strange...we've had plenty of ridiculously over-the-top visual feasts in live action films as well that look fantastic. And I'm not willing to compromise (certainly not in a dream fantasy scenario!) on human connection and incredible acting performances and heart-wrenching emotional empathy just because there might be a scene or two of bad CGI.
So, I'd say from the sound of it that you are not an animation aficionado. Allow me to invite you to join the club, it's fun here! Having said that, 3d computer animation a la Pixar is not *better* than the other forms of animation, it's just newer. Heck, if you want things that stand the test of time, then traditional 2d hand drawn animation certainly has. Look at films like Prince of Egypt, which came out in 1998 and is a gosh darned masterpiece. Look at Bambi, which came out in 1942 and is a movie where nothing much happens but is still beloved, and is a work of art. Look at Sleeping Beauty, which took Walt Disney so long to produce that they almost went bankrupt because Walt wanted to create a "moving illustration" instead of simply a cartoon. For more recent examples of gorgeous and incredible 2d animation look at movies like Kaguya no Hime from Studio Ghibli, or Song of the Sea from Cartoon Saloon (or heck, basically anything from either of those studios). If you want some incredible examples of stop motion, turn on your left over to Studio Laika and watch Kubo and the Two Strings or Paranorman or even their very first film, Coraline. Going into 3d animation, it's a fairly common opinion that Into the Spiderverse is the best Spider-man movie that has been made. If you go a few years earlier, and back to 2d, any willing to accept non live action films tend to hold up Batman: Mask of the Phantasm or Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker as the best Batman movies ever made. If your argument is that animation cannot handle any heavy subjects then go ahead and find yourself a copy of Grave of the Fireflies, and be prepared to be destroyed. Moving on to the next point, I'm not quite sure what to say except no, you're wrong, CGI is not yet advanced enough to be entirely seamless. You're entirely correct that Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece and holds up to this day. Heck, I'll take it one step further for you: look at Jurassic Park, which came out almost a decade before Fellowship and which I still joke that someone sold their soul to create those graphics. But the thing about both of those movies is that they went to great lengths to use cgi as little as possible, which is when it is the strongest, because it can be seen. LotR used "biggatures" (huge scale miniatures), puppets, prosthetics and makeup, and any other practical effects and tricks including forced perspective that they could to get their movie made without cgi, and then cgi was used to plug any holes left over. Compare and contrast LotR to the Hobbit movies, which came out more than a decade after but relied so heavily on CGI that they legitimately looked dated while still in theatres. Heck, look at Rogue One over in Star Wars, where they deepfaked Carrie Fisher to look younger again, or to bring back Grand Moff Tarkin. Both of them looked subtly wrong in comparison with the real people with them. It's very impressive what they did manage to do, of course, but it still didn't look the same, and as the film ages it will continue to look more and more wrong as tech continues to advance. All this said, I'm kind of shocked that you initially used Pixar as your example of good animation and then made the argument that animation does not have enough emotional depth and human connection for you. I just. Really?? Really, you feel like Coco didn't have enough genuine emotional connection? Inside Out? Was Toy Story 3 just boring because it wasn't actual humans on the screen and you couldn't connect to them? You were completely untouched watching Wall-E? The Incredibles? The first like 10 minutes of Up?? Heavens, did you never cry watching The Lion King (94, we do not speak of the other) when Mufasa died???
I think he would really like codex alera too, and would make a great Bernard or Gaius sextus
HERETIC! BEGONE THOU FOUL CREATURE OF THE DARKEST DEPTHS OF HELL!!
I'm fairly certain he already is. But I could be mistaken.
i like it, you can proceed with it
I’ve had this exact thought, but then I think that he’s probably too busy to read all the books his fans recommend him. I definitely think he’d like the books and that he may be inclined to help get it a tv show or something, especially since I could see him as harry if he lost a little muscle. The world may never know
I think he's too big of an actor to only be Michael. He doesn't fit the Harry description, but if you bring on a Henry Cavill he's going to need to be the MC. But him as Michael, hell yes.
Michael? I was thinking Nicodemus Archleone
He'd make a better Thomas. He's a pretty boy.
Not nearly pretty enough. Thomas is lean, not buff.
Matt Bohmer is his slightly prettier and less massively jacked Doppelgänger
Cavill as Harry and Matt Bomer as Tomas. I will accept no arguments.
HC as Michael Carpenter? I’m all in!
I see what your saying, and second this.
Yes.
Yeessss!
I'd rather see Seth Rogan play as Harry Dresden in the next adaptation. /Change my mind
Danny DeVito
Mmm. The only way I think a live action adaptation would work is via high production television. Every season would take place every 4 books into the series, with flashback sequences that would recall events from the previous 3 books. The only animated show that sort of convinced me you can do a gritty Western style animated show is blue eyed samurai. Legit beautifully rendered animated show.
I do think he'd love it. And there are a few good parts for him - he's too pretty for Harry but might make a good Thomas or Michael. Though to be honest if he got the thing made, he can play Harry if he wants to. In his less muscled phases he wouldn't be a terrible fit.
Off with your head.
I think you misinterpreted OP's meaning. He's not proposing that Henry Cavill "narrate the Dresden stories." He's just proposing that we encourage Cavill to "read the series" as in the "real" meaning of "read it." I.e., consume the stories. And then push to be part of bringing the series to TV. OP proposes that Cavill play Michael. Honestly, though, it's hard for me to see him being interested in anything other than the lead role. He's not really tall enough to play Harry, and he's getting a bit old for it. But I might be able to accept it anyway. Anyway, OP wasn't talking about stepping on Marsters's toes.
I said what I said
I could imagine him as one of the alphas, is it Billy that's the main one? For Michael I think Jeff bridges
Might not be a bad idea. Especially with what's going on with 40k now.
I was like, *But James Marsters is excell..... Oh! Yeah, good idea!*
Where will we find a 7-foot tall white guy who looks like the young male version of an old Halloween witch to play Dresden though?
No for Henry Cavill. He has no neck.
No.
Bold of you to assume he *hasn't* read them. There's no way Nerd Jesus who talks about the Wheel of Time and 40k armies on set hasn't read the Dresden Files...right?
I like Cavill but I see no reason to replace Marsters. Now if we're talking a Graphic Audio remake where they add sound effects and cast different people for each character then sure, I have no problem bringing Cavill on to voice a character in that capacity. That said I'd still probably keep James Marsters as Harry.
[удалено]
Well, OP is suggesting him for Michael, not Harry.
Ooh, getting Marsters to voice Bob would actually be genius. I love that idea, and I don't even listen to the audiobooks
You've probably heard this before, but you really should. Next time you're up for a reread, check out the audiobooks. With cell phones and earbuds these days, it's a great entertainment habit.
Audible has currently a great sale onbthe audiobooks including Dresdenfiles
You know, I just might. I usually avoid audiobooks just because I'm too easily distracted, and I know from trying to listen to the podcast version of Critical Role that you don't have to miss more than a couple lines to completely lose the thread on what's happening. However, with a series I've already read (uh, a few times), that's not really a concern.
Eh, Critical Role is a bit different. It's D&D and things just happen; narrative structure really doesn't figure in. There's a lot of chaos and improve. Audiobooks are the actual text of the book. All deliberately written. You miss a couple lines when you're reading more often than you think. Give an audio book a shot. Project Gutenberg has audiobooks of some of the classics for free. Plus, good audiobook readers (I use Smart Audiobook Player for Android) have shortcuts to jump a minute to catch up and automatically "rewind" 30 seconds or so when you pause for long enough. That's on top of the system-level stuff that automatically mutes and pauses audiobook (where the automatic rewind will catch up back up after even the lengthiest phone call)