If it's crap ... We'll tell you
31 posted a status
BassSamurai posted a status
Hey it's Melvin! posted a status
Things are starting to get interesting for Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah.' Initially it was reported that the biblical epic from the director of 'Black Swan' would feature Saoirse Ronan ('Hannah') as the young female lead. This apparently fell through so the part was offered to Dakota Fanning. However, Fanning had already accepted a role in the indie film 'Very Good Girls' and could not work out the scheduling. With her passing on the gig, it now looks like the studio is talking to Emma Watson (the Harry Potter franchise) about coming aboard. In addition to Watson, it appears Liev Schreiber may be booking passage on the Ark. He is apparently the frontrunner for the villain, a part once rumored to be going to Liam Neeson. Are they actually casting all these roles two-by-two?
I have to say, as disappointed as I am that Saoirse Ronan will not be playing the young female lead, I'm much happier it will be Emma Watson than Dakota Fanning. Nothing against Fanning really, I just think Watson is the stronger choice and the more adept performer. On top of that, I want to see Watson get more non-Potter work and have her talents recognized for something other than casting spells and battling dark wizards. As to the villain of the film, I guess I assumed the antagonist would be, I don't know, the forty days and nights of rain. But I supposed they do need a human baddie, and I think Schreiber is a great choice. I had somehow missed that Neeson was ever up for the part, but I'm not the biggest fan of villainous Liam; think he works much better as a hero or anti-hero. I've always kind of liked Schrieber, but after his turn in the hockey comedy 'Goon,' I'd say it's graduated to more of a man crush. Hopefully these loose casting moorings will be secured soon and 'Noah' can set sail.
What do you guys think about the potential casting of Watson? Do you think Schreiber could make a worthy opponent for Noah?
Source: Variety
Comment
Comment by TheHeat on June 11, 2012 at 2:42pm I love Emma Watson.
Comment by Dreux Pronounced Drew on June 10, 2012 at 9:29pm @Josh
Not the atheists and agnostics, just the morons who might as well be what they oppose.
Comment by The Ultimate "Psych" Fan on June 10, 2012 at 7:27pm Why the fuck do we need a villain in the story?! Isn't the flood itself good enough?
Comment by I'm Batman on June 10, 2012 at 5:08pm Micheal do you not know how to spell Bible? Lol... Whenever they make a movie based on a 2000 year plus book the Atheist and Agnostics get so upset.
Comment by Composite Who Horrible on June 9, 2012 at 10:27pm The villian? So does this mean he would be playing Satan? If so, Liam Neeson must be given the role over Liev!!!
Comment by Dreux Pronounced Drew on June 9, 2012 at 7:45pm @ Hendrix
No one's touting this as a true story, jackass. Calm down.
Comment by Michael on June 9, 2012 at 1:46pm Oh my god another bibel film just why?
Comment by Caleb Kahn on June 8, 2012 at 10:46pm If Emma Watson will actually stick to her guns and work with Aronofsky, I will do whatever it takes to see this movie in the theatre! Out of the lot of them, she seems to be doing the best. Daniel Radcliffe needs to branch away from the supernatural stuff, Rupert Grint has to find the right project to work on in Hollywood, Tom Felton's done well with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and Matthew Lewis is perhaps building his name up still despite all the press surrounding him for the last one. But Emma seems to be the one doing the best right now. My Week with Marilyn did well with the critics, The Perks of Being a Wallflower looks very good, The Bling Ring seems to be an interesting film for her to make, End of the World will be the first time she's done real comedy and if she does this movie, she'll really cement herself as one of the best actresses of my generation and she'll no doubt have a place for her at the table! So happy for her right now!
Comment by Trebor on June 8, 2012 at 6:43pm Pro tip: when calling people idiots, use the correct form of you're for added effect
Comment by Trebor on June 8, 2012 at 6:42pm Aronofsky is not claiming it's a true story lol, it's just a movie
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
You need to be a member of The Spill Movie Community to add comments!
Join The Spill Movie Community