MovieChat Forums > My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion > I can't believe the Fannings were origin...

I can't believe the Fannings were originally going to play the sisters!

posted 14 years ago by dramakid-1
11 replies | jump to latest

According to Wiki:
Upon the original creation of the film adaption, Dakota and Elle Fanning were set in place to play Kate and Anna, with Dakota playing Kate and her younger sister playing Anna. This pairing was especially convenient as the girls already closely resembled each other and were used to working together. However, when Dakota heard that she would be required to shave her head for the role, she immediately dropped the film. As a result, Elle dropped too. The two sisters were quickly replaced, with Abigail Breslin taking on the lead role as Anna Fitzgerald.

This is awful! The film would have been disgustingly sweet if these two kids had been cast. And how superficial is Dakota?

Defy gravity!

[–] pablo234 14 years ago

I'm sure Elle Fanning would've been great as Anna. But Breslin and Vassilieva did a flawless job anyway

[–] chipstastedelicious 14 years ago

I was bothered by the fact that she refused to shave her head. Her hair is so thin and Sofia had beautiful thick hair. Sofia said she was willing to shave her head because "it was the least she could do to feel APL patient's pain."
Yes, very superficial of Dakota.

[–] talentunfound 13 years ago

She probably couldn't shave her head. She has people who manage the work she gets and being bald makes it very hard to get work, regardless of if you're super famous or not. It's probably the same reason Cameron Diaz used a bald cap instead of actually shaving her hair.

[–] drmello 13 years ago

I agree with talentunfound. I like it how people just automatically jump to the conclusion she must superficial without actually knowing WHY she refused to do it, it was probably just a smart business move on her part.

[–] LextheXFile 13 years ago

I wish the Fanning sisters had done this movie, as I love their work- why couldn't Dakota have worn a bald cap like Diaz did in the film? Anyone know?

When I pull the wings off of the fly/ The fly never wonders why I did it.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] darkeststorm10 13 years ago

...And this is why wigs are invented. You don't see people with cancer refusing chemo because "Omg, I'll lose my hair!". Hair grows back, she should have done it as far as I'm concerned. It seems very shallow to me that she didn't.

[–] saramacg09 13 years ago

It's very obnoxious for you to say that. The two really aren't even comparable, and I am somewhat offended by the fact that you would even make the insinuation that Dakota refusing to shave her head for a movie is even remotely similar to a cancer patient refusing chemo. It isn't like Dakota Fanning's prospects of living decreased substantially the way it would for a cancer patient who refuses treatment.

And this is why wigs are invented.

The same argument could be made for using skin-caps. Skin caps exist. They could have fitted her with a skin-cap instead of shaving her head. Dakota Fanning should not be obligated to do anything she doesn't want to do or isn't comfortable with. It isn't like anyone would call her shallow for refusing to do nudity because she wasn't comfortable with it. And she certainly doesn't deserve judgement from the likes of you.

[–] actionmanrandell 12 years ago

just because she didnt want to shave her head doesnt make her superficial.
some people just dont feel confortible shaving there head

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TooPrettyInPink 11 years ago

Thank God the Fannings dropped the film! The two actresses that took their place did a flawless job, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as good without them.