Once again, I shall complain that all of the interesting news happens when I happen to be away from NarniaWeb for the day. Perhaps I should stop coming altogether so that we can have Dawn Treader news every day?

Firstly, I have to say: finally a topic that I agree with gP on! I’m tired of disagreeing with him. He is too good at debating.

Secondly I will reiterate much of what gP has said. I liked Izzard
. I am disappointed in the lack of continuity. Reep was pretty much just comic relief in PC and his character was given depth in VDT and only became a serious character in VDT. So the fact that Izzard played Reep comically in PC has little bearing on how he would have portrayed him in VDT.

I can understand people’s arguments that Reep was funny in PC but now is more serious in VDT so that’s why they hired a comedian to do PC and a more serious actor for VDT, but I don’t think the argument holds weight. Just have the comedian read the lines seriously. You don’t need to get a new actor.

On a related note, I hope the reason they switched actors was to age Reep, because at least that would make sense, but I’m not sure if that argument holds weight either. Just have Izzard read Reep “older.” I daresay Mr. Izzard can do a good imitation of an elderly voice. You don’t need to get a new actor just to make Reep older. But even if they did, I’m not sure that I like the idea of an older Reepicheep. I mean, do we really want to see a mouse with crutches on the Dawn Treader?

OK, I exaggerate, but come on, has anyone really imagined Reep as having aged significantly between PC and VDT? Does anyone imagine Reep as a geezer? I always imagined Reep as being in the flower of his youth when he decides to sail to Aslan’s Country; leaving earth before death can get to him, like Enoch did. Reep decided to sail east because he was young and adventurous, not because he was old and getting tired of BINGO and The Price is Right. In SAT terms, Reep to Aslan’s Country is not as Carl to Paradise Falls.

Someone argued that they were glad Izzard was not doing the voice because a deep voice for a mouse was unrealistic. Is it any more realistic to have a deep voice for a Beaver? I personally was glad to hear that both Mr. Beaver and Reepicheep had “human” voices, as opposed to “character” voices. Yes, the voice actor for the Radio Theatre radio dramas did an excellent job as Reepicheep, but that was just one interpretation of what a talking mouse would sound like, and personally, I found the shrillness annoying at first (although I have since gotten used to it). I liked that Adamson chose deep, rich voices for the talking animal characters.

Besides, the deepness of the voice, as I understand it, just depends on the length of your vocal tract. Perhaps the vocal tracts of talking animals are longer than those of their dumb and witless counterparts? And while I’m on the subject, would a tenor mouse be any more realistic than a bass voiced mouse? Surely if a mouse really spoke, it would be a high soprano. But if these really are magical animals, why shouldn’t they have low voices? Besides, the differences in length of the vocal tract between a soprano and a bass must not be too great. I mean, it isn’t as if all sopranos are short necked people while all basses have necks like giraffes! The difference in size is rather small when you think about it.

One last thought has just occurred to me, while I’m on the subject of voices. The range of the voice might not have to do with the length of the tract, but on the size of the Adam’s apple. In that case, my argument is much the same. Talking animals simply have large Adam’s apples. And the difference in size between a soprano’s Adam’s apple and a bass’s really isn’t that much.

My last comment on the switch between Izzard and Nighy is that I really don’t think the difference in voices is all that great. If Nighy chose, he could make his voice quite similar to Izzard’s. However, I am not at all sure that the filmmakers want him to.

All I can say at this point is that I’m sorry to see you go Mr. Izzard, but I hope that you do a good job Mr. Nighy.

Glumpuddle:
Okay, so we have the same actors, but at what cost? This is the reason the HP movies and very underwhelming as adaptations. They don't have time to do anything but re-enact the book and point a camera at it. They aren't able to give the scripts the loving attention they deserve. This is all because they are in a tremendous rush to get the movies filmed before the actors get too old. So I say they should just keep hiring new actors so that won't be a concern.

Eddie Izzard and Georgie Henley are two examples where I almost picture them when I read the books (in the case of Izzard, I imagine his voice). So either of them being recast would be a very difficult thing for me. But everyone else... not so much. I think Ben Barnes did a fine job as Caspian, but I would rather lose him than Izzard at this point.

Well, I still can't help to think that the harry potter films (at least most of them) were good films and good adaptations. They always give me the same magical feeling ad the book, and I think they always did a good job. I know they could have been better, but I still love them. I think recasting someone is always a bad thing to do, because every actor approaches a character in different way, and it would really be annoying that it's not a just new actor, but a new act as well. This would make for seven seperate films instead of a series.

I agree i think some of you need to calm down. Gettign angry over it won't change everything. Think about the positive of the positives of the chnage not the negitives.

Someone argued that they were glad Izzard was not doing the voice because a deep voice for a mouse was unrealistic. Is it any more realistic to have a deep voice for a Beaver? I personally was glad to hear that both Mr. Beaver and Reepicheep had “human” voices, as opposed to “character” voices. Yes, the voice actor for the Radio Theatre radio dramas did an excellent job as Reepicheep, but that was just one interpretation of what a talking mouse would sound like, and personally, I found the shrillness annoying at first (although I have since gotten used to it). I liked that Adamson chose deep, rich voices for the talking animal characters.

I did not say that the choice of Nighy resolves my issues with the deep mouse voice. I agree the animals' voices should be "human" in some sense, and perhaps the beavers too would have shrill voices if you took a more realistic route, but with Reepicheep in the movie the contrast between voice and stature is too sharp.

Besides, the deepness of the voice, as I understand it, just depends on the length of your vocal tract. Perhaps the vocal tracts of talking animals are longer than those of their dumb and witless counterparts? And while I’m on the subject, would a tenor mouse be any more realistic than a bass voiced mouse? Surely if a mouse really spoke, it would be a high soprano. But if these really are magical animals, why shouldn’t they have low voices? Besides, the differences in length of the vocal tract between a soprano and a bass must not be too great. I mean, it isn’t as if all sopranos are short necked people while all basses have necks like giraffes! The difference in size is rather small when you think about it.

Well, the vocal cords of a two feet mouse aren't likely to match those of a human being, are they? So yes, a tenor would be equally unrealistic. Of course, realism was never much of a concern in Narnia. And as I wrote, a falsetto Reep might sound ridiculous on the screen, like a Terry Jones/Monty Python woman's voice!

Nighy/Reep voice test...

Haha

Well, I still can't help to think that the harry potter films (at least most of them) were good films and good adaptations. They always give me the same magical feeling ad the book, and I think they always did a good job. I know they could have been better, but I still love them. I think recasting someone is always a bad thing to do, because every actor approaches a character in different way, and it would really be annoying that it's not a just new actor, but a new act as well. This would make for seven seperate films instead of a series.

The films don't stand alone. They only work if you've read the books.
Talk to a non-reader about the HP films. They typically don't quite understand the stories, and aren't able to talk about HP in any depth. They just enjoy the special effects. The nagging problem with the franchise is that they are producing the films at 1,000 miles per hour because they're worried about the actors getting too old. They aren't able to give the films the loving attention they deserve.

Point 1: Cast continuity is nice, but it's not worth sacrificing good story-telling.

As for each actor having a different approach, that's fine, because the Potter character becomes more complex through the series. Imo, Radcliffe was fine in movie 1 as an 11-year-old, but the role has become to complex for him to handle. Also, just as each actor has a different approach, each director has a slightly different vision, and may need different actors to realize that. (That may be the case here with Apted recasting Izzard)

Point 2: They may have been the right actor for one movie, but that doesn't mean they'll be the right actor for every movie.

... So you see, normally I'm very open to the idea of recasting. I think continuity is overrated. But with Reep... I have just so accepted the fact that Izzard's voice IS Reep's voice. Nighy will probably do a great job, but I'm just very disappointed that Izzard won't be able to take the character to the next level.

Nighy/Reep voice test...

Haha

The films don't stand alone. They only work if you've read the books.
Talk to a non-reader about the HP films. They typically don't quite understand the stories, and aren't able to talk about HP in any depth. They just enjoy the special effects. The nagging problem with the franchise is that they are producing the films at 1,000 miles per hour because they're worried about the actors getting too old. They aren't able to give the films the loving attention they deserve.

Point 1: Cast continuity is nice, but it's not worth sacrificing good story-telling.

As for each actor having a different approach, that's fine, because the Potter character becomes more complex through the series. Imo, Radcliffe was fine in movie 1 as an 11-year-old, but the role has become to complex for him to handle. Also, just as each actor has a different approach, each director has a slightly different vision, and may need different actors to realize that. (That may be the case here with Apted recasting Izzard)

Glad you liked my video!
Now you say it, I realise that it's true! people who haven't read the HP books have problems with the film. I guess I like them a lot because I am a big fan of the books.But I don't believe recasting is the answer. I think they should have just ignored the age problem and took the time. If I remember correctly from your blog, you, as well as I, were relieved to hear that VDT was pushed back a year (from may 2009 to may 2010). So I guess I like it when they take there time, but I also like keeping the same actors. recall that I was distracted by micheal gambon's dumbledore in PoA, although he did a good job. I cannot imagine what it would do to me if half the cast would have been changed. Just keep the actors, pretend there is no aging problem. A guy of 21 can still play a guy of 17, and I'm pretty sure you would not notice it when you are watching the movie. Maybe in the beginning, but once the first ten minutes are over, I think you can accept it and move on.

And things were going so well! Just three things:
- I liked Izzard in PC!
- How will they have character continuity? Its like the adult characters in LWW. When the kids are grown up in LB, they'll look nothing like their LWW adult counterparts!!!
- I just pray to god that he does better than he did in Alex Rider: Stormbreaker as Alan Blunt.

Keep in mind, in Alex Rider the goal was to create a bland, unremarkable character and the script for his part was not the best written. I've got a lot of confidence based on what everyone has said here that he will do a good, solid job. Whether or not he does a great job as Reep depends on the script and how Reep has been written this time around.

True...
But what about continuity?!?

First of all I will say that the change of voice acting really doesnt affect me at all. As long as someone can voice something similar to the character, I really don't care. I'd be much more angry if they replaced one of the main actors whose faces we can reconise.

Anyway, maybe Izzard didnt want to reprise his role as reepicheep because he had issues with the direction of the character.

I mean, Reepicheeps character takes a very strong Christian message with him during the last few chapters of VotDT, and maybe Izzard didnt want to play a character that came across as preachy or religon based.

And maybe this isnt a big issue for Bill Nighy.

This is just a theory, and don't take anything I said as fact. But if this happened to be the case, I wouldnt mind the change.

^^yeah it that was the case, I wouldn't mind either. I'd rather have a new voice for Reep and have him be his book-ish self, than keep Izzard and have some excellent lines from the book cut.

As long as Reep gets to keep at least some of his good lines in the books, and if Nighy sound at least a little similar, I won't mind too much. I didn't really like Izzard in the first place.

After the initial shock and disbelief... I don't know how I feel about this. I really liked Izzard's job in PC, and I was excited too see what he would do in VDT. I guess I'd be alright if it's because they were ageing him, but I still have that queezy feeling in my gut... never a good sign. They'd better not make the change to noticible, and definitely no high pitched vioce. I hope you know what your doing Mr. Apted. I'm still hoping for Izzard in LB.

Well, we can just be glad that Bill Nighy is replacing Izzard. It could be a lot worse.

Overall, I'm pleased with the change. I love Bill Nighy and I don't like Eddie Izzard; I was never attached to Izzard's voice as Reep, instead I was rather neutral. The thing I take issue with is changing actors! I hate hate hate it when movie series' do this. Luckily, Bill Nighy's voice is very similar to Izzard's and he is a fantastic actor. I'm just thankful they're not replacing one of the main cast. I can stand animated characters, but not main cast.

Looking forward to seeing what Nighy does with the role! (Am I the only one?)

~~

Looking forward to seeing what Nighy does with the role! (Am I the only one?)

~~

No. I'm very curious how he does.