People who get mad when....

[deleted]

I worked on the film and she is gonna be amazing in it. No worries people.



******
Nessarose:What's in the punch?
Boq:Lemons and melons and pears
Nessarose:Oh my!
******

Except here her height is important you moron. Libby is like helpless child. What happened to her it's like it trapped her both mentally and physically.


http://cinematiccorner.blogspot.com/
http://littlesati.tumblr.com/

I think people need to learn to separate the book from the movie. Yes Charlize is not the exact description of the character, but when that happens? Harry potter had green eyes, katniss was 16, I mean, is a movie. I am sure Charlize is more than capable to make us feel how helpless she is, even if she is not extremely short. If an olsen twin had been casted people would still be complaining about something.
When I read the book I totally imagined Nicholas Hoult as Lyle tho, so tall and awkward, Maybe he will make Charlize look shorter!

Libby is a woman missing some fingers. Thus, Charlize Theron is totally wrong for the part. They need to find a high-profile actress who is not only missing some fingers, but the EXACT DIGITS that are described as missing in Gillian Flynn's book. (The novel also describes her as missing some toes, but I am OK with them casting an actress with all her toes, providing the toes are not shown in the movie. Otherwise they will need to do some expensive CGI work to remove the toes. I do not think it will be feasible to remove fingers via CGI.)

Seriously, though, I hope the movie is great. Looking forward to Flynn's next book!

Reminds me of the people who were upset tom cruise was cast as jack reacher. Even though tom's a terrific actor more than capable of bring the intensity the role required.

Personally I feel it is very arrogant on the part of the film makers when they deviate so much from the literary character's physical appearance. The author of any novel creates and describes their characters in a specific way for specific reasons. In the case of Dark Places, Libby's height, stature and physical description are actually VERY important in the book. As others have commented, her physicality was vital to her survival, portrays her mental state and the way she's perceived and treated by others. To cast someone so opposite in appearance to Libby is basically saying they can over-ride the author's vision for her character. Even though the movie is an adaptation, and there will be some subjective interpretation and changes along the way, this is a bit much.

My view is that Charlize is 100% miscast as Libby Day. First off - Charlize is beautiful. Libby is not. They have to really ugly up Charlize. Libby has red hair (dyed blonde), huge breasts and is very short (4'9"). I realize they can get actors to dye their hair, change their eye color with lenses, pad breasts, lose weight / gain weight, give them scars, bad skin, CGI in extra limbs or take some away, etc etc. But honestly I think someone's stature and presence is much harder to modify, even with movie magic. Charlize just has that imposing, statuesque figure and beauty. I can't see her at all as tiny, damaged Libby Day.

Even in movies where actors are made to look shorter / smaller, they usually start off fairly small in real life. EG Elijah Wood - he is only 5'6" in real life. So even though there was movie magic involved in making him look like a hobbit, he started off pretty tiny, with petite features (for a man) that lent themselves well to being shrunken to hobbit size. Trying to get Charlize to appear 4'9" would kind of be like making The Rock look like a hobbit. Their body sizes and shapes are just wrong for those roles.

It's a shame Amy Adams dropped out of the Libby Day role. She would have been a huge improvement.

I'm sure there are working actresses -- not necessarily A-list celebs -- who come fairly close to Libby's description and age. We all understand the financial need to cast big names; some of us just wish we could see some fresh faces get a chance in roles they would be better suited to than the popular picks. I get what you're saying, but calling people of that mindset "idiots" is a bit narrow. Of course adaptations don't owe absolute fidelity to their source material, but the book did come first, so it's pretty understandable when fans want to see more or less the same character they read about be portrayed on the screen. When they just cast a big name who has absolutely nothing in common with the character physically, of course it looks lazy to some people. It's not that unreasonable to at least point it out.