First screen test of Henry Cavill in The Witcher


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/10/31/first-screen-test-of-henry-cav.html


#2

Maybe he can at least have as much fun as Brandon Routh seems to be having with Legends of Tomorrow.


#3

Meh, it might be good. Why not? The man himself took ages to pry character development out of, and we still love him.


#4

Jenny Nicholson has some choice observations of this Henry Cavill…

Plus, a little young and way under scarred.
My enthusiasm, it has left me.


#5

He’s just not the right pick for the role - too young, not believably weathered. Henry Cavill is as much a ‘man of the woods’ as freakin’ Justin Timberlake


#6

I’m a huge Witcher fan, and this does absolutely nothing for me. Like, if they’re going to do a test shot with costume and swords, shitty grey hair, etc., at least give him the cat eyes.

But, seriously, they needed someone closer to middle aged to play Geralt, and to give him more scars. This candy-ass looks like he never even had to survive Witcher training.


#7

Cavill’s more like “man of the wooden”.


#8

Someone would like a word with you, Cavill.


#9

Yeah, that was part of Geralt’s appeal, at least for me: Geralt could never be in a boy band.


#10

I love the games, and I refuse to pass judgement on the acting choices until further notice, but his hair in this is just… too… flowing.


#11

Based on the books not the games where Geralt is purportedly cleaner cut. Younger. And less facially scarred. And take place much before the games.

There are also practicalities to consider. Having actors sit through scar and age makeup daily is expensive, time consuming, and apparently unpleasant. If they’d like the show to run for a bit, and show passage of time. They need to be careful about ages cast to avoid weird. Too old and people look too old by the end. Too young and people look too young for the bulk of the series. You need to sort of juke it to make sure people look appropriate for the bulk of the story you’ll be adapting/telling. Because really people age.

Hope they fix that wig though. Little stagey.


#12

I think making the series live action will be a giant uphill battle. If it was mostly like Game of Thrones maybe there’d be a chance but The Witcher is full bore fantasy with magic, all manner of creatures and monsters and really selling that would require more effort and a higher budget. I feel like this would be best served as an animated series, it’d be easier to suspend your disbelief and you’d be able to do more visually. I imagine what this would be like as an adult oriented anime and i think that would be really hype, instead i see Henry Cavill with a bad halloween wig and it just makes me sad.


#13

I’ve read only the first book. I liked it.
To me, he looked kinda’ like Cavill but less douchey.

I was certainly affected by my experience with the games, I won’t deny it.

How about this guy…

mixed with a little this guy…

And some…

Or, maybe just…

I’m mostly concerned with the accusation that he can’t act.


#14

what, they couldn’t get Brolin?


#15

I think the best suggestion I’ve seen casting wise is Mads Mickelson. He looks about like what you’d imagine and could still be less grizzled than video game Geralt. And he’s a hell of an actor who pulls off otherworldly, stilted, and humor well. Often all together. Plus he’s easy enough on the eyes, in an atypical non beefcake way. Which seems to be what people expect.

Not that I think he could pull it off by Bradley Cooper looks quite a bit like video game Geralt.

Cavil is a pretty good actor. Though his prominent project haven’t really done him any favors. I think the looks too douchey criticism is a good one. Because Cavil does look pretty douchey. And he often plays douchey pretty damn well. That might strike a bit at the negative reactions people are having, but have difficulty describing. Cavil Geralt looks like a dick. And whether your reference point is the games or the books. You don’t want your hero to look like a dick.

I think budget is a major watch word here. But I think your underselling how expensive all those hair pieces and period costumes are. Game of Thrones is one of the most expensive television programs ever produced. And that’s despite being a more limited sources of fantasy that requires fewer obvious special effects.

It’s all going to depend on how much money Netflix wants to throw at it. And for how long.

You’re also under estimating how good damned expensive quality animation is. And how unprofitable. The bulk of the market, especially the US and non-France parts of Europe think of Animation as kids stuff.

There’s a reason most of our non-disney non cg animation get done abroad. And there’s a reason American run animation mostly runs around 11 minute kids shows. Or niche material produced cheeply.

It’s easy enough to say if they took the same budget and applied it to animation you’d get a higher quality product or better looking result. And that might be true. But it’s not assured. And it’s very unlikely anyone would give an animated program the same level of budget.

I’m not sure how worried we should be about budget concerns. Cavil ain’t cheap. And that’s a good sign.

That’s a make up and camera test. So an early in house run to see what’s working and what isn’t Good wigs are both hard an expensive. And these things are shot with perfunctory lighting that makes things look worse then they are. A good part of the point is seeing how practical it is for the actor to move, not showing exactly how it will look in a finished product.

There’s almost always changes and adjustments based on footage like this. And when released public reaction to it. And when shot under proper lighting, polished in post, to the final product. These things look a lot better. Camera and lighting tricks can significantly change how something looks. All of the chain mail in Monty Python Holy Grail and a lot of other older flicks is knit from wool.


#16

You say this like i don’t know. I was saying that if they wanted to really deliver on the high fantasy they’d have to spend even more than GoT. It’s possible but unlikely, which makes me suspect that the end result won’t be good but i’m happy to be wrong… i’m not rooting for this to fail.

It can be done though, see Netflix’s Castlevania. And it was directed at a more mature audience and its reception was widely regarded as excellent. Doing a similar approach for The Witcher can be done and i would prefer it over live action.


#18

Brolin would be PERFECT except for the thing where he only ever half-opens his eyes


#19

Part of what I’m trying to get at is that I don’t know that that’s true. Game of Thrones isn’t necessarily limiting costs by having fewer monsters. Their major expenses are apparently in routine stuff like “normal” costuming, large casts, and extensive background cgi. They do minitgate costs by reducing appearances of the dragons. But they could reduce the costs of the dragons other ways.

The Witcher series is already potentially loose on costuming, and potentially more adaptable to limited casts, and smaller settings. Practical effects, to extent are cheaper than high end CGI. Even as *bad CGI is cheaper than either.

I think your still talking about Game of Thrones level spends to really make it work. But Game of Thrones pulls a lot of what it does off better than bigger budget cinema.

Yeah I would very much like that. I’m a huge animation buff.

But the quality of animation in Castlevania isn’t even up to par with what’s typical of shows like that in Asia. There are noted compromises on a technical level that can be spotted on screen as well as they pulled that off.

Additionally the series was only green lit as a 3 episode pilot/miniseries. And didn’t get a budget to do more than those 3 episodes. The budget is fairly low. And as successful as it’s been. It’s not exactly raking in Game of Thrones money.

Animation lowers the potential audience, baring kids movies. Shouldn’t be the case but it is. So however much money you put into a project if it’s animated you’re likely getting less money out of it than if it was live action. And for as much as we think of animation as cheeper. It only seems that way because outside of Disney/Pixar and basically at this point DreamWorks. For movies. We almost exclusively make cheap animation.

So if you’re saying you’d rather see a smaller scale, lower budget, but well executed animated project. Than a higher budget live action one that fails.

Sure. But I’d rather see the more ambitious attempt. We don’t really know how this is going to turn out yet.

If what your saying is that you want to see an ambitious attempt at really well executed, propper full on, Disney grade animation. Pitched at the general public not kids, nerds, or fans.

Yeah that’d be great. I’ve wanted to see some one, anyone do that with something my whole life. But there’s little chance that would work, and even less chance that anyone would fund it.


#20

Yeah… a good and somewhat nuanced choice.

I think peoples concern is not that Cavill is too this or that but that he is such low hanging fruit. And not that he couldn’t maybe be OK but that his selection may indicate that everything else about the show will be at best OK.


#21

And the part where he sucks.