D&D Movie/TV DADHAT becomes Netflix Global Hit

I think it's kind-of frowned upon these days to choose people to play basically other species based purely upon their physical stature. "Oh, you're unusually short? Yeah, don't worry applying for the lead, you can be the garden gnome character."

One reason why they've changed the height restrictions on humans in the current ruleset.
I'm not suggesting little people can't play lead characters in films like these (and indeed I think a D&D movie that actually had a lead halfling character played by an actor of short-stature would get over really well)... but rather if you are going to have small species within the world of the film, casting size-appropriate actors for those parts rather than digitally shrinking larger actors would be both beneficial for more acting opportunities for those actors, plus save gobs of money on special effects.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it's kind-of frowned upon these days to choose people to play basically other species based purely upon their physical stature. "Oh, you're unusually short? Yeah, don't worry applying for the lead, you can be the garden gnome character."

One reason why they've changed the height restrictions on humans in the current ruleset.

I get where that is coming from, but I'm not sure this attitude actually has such beneficial effects, and possibly the opposite. Quite a few short actors have voiced their opinion that this practice actually had made them get way fewer jobs. This was last talked about in media when they digitally miniaturised Hugh Grant for the new Wonka film, I think it was also mentioned with the latest Snow White. The truth of the matter is that unless you're Peter Dinklage, these sort of roles were mostly what many short actors could get, but now these parts are instead played by tall people as well.
 
Last edited:

I get where that is coming from, but I'm not sure this attitude actually has such beneficial effects, and possibly the opposite. Quite a few short actors have voiced their opinion that this practice actually had made them get way fewer jobs. This was last talked about in media when they digitally miniatuised Hugh Grant to the new Wonka film, I think it was also mentioned with the latest Snow White. The truth of the matter is that unless you're Peter Dinklage, these sort of roles were mostly what many short actors could get, but now these parts are instead played by tall people people as well.
True enough. Is it worse to be typecast based upon your physical appearance, or not to be cast at all? Probably not a question with a definitive answer.
 



I loved going to movie theaters. But in the days of old, quality of sound and image was worth the money and time when compared to old crt tv and even first generations of lcd tvs. 65 cm (not inch, centimeter) tv was big screen at home and it cost pretty penny. Now, i have 68" oled 4k with soundbar. For most movies, it's pretty good setup, and watching experience is even better than watching in cinema. I have my sofa, i can pause it when i need to go to toilet or refill drink/snacks. Very few new movies are better in cinema than at home ( prime example Dune and Top Gun).
Yeah, things have changed quite a bit here. I still enjoy going to the cinema with other people, but as others have noted, that has become rarer over time. And it's quite noticeable that especially smaller cinemas are struggling - the one where I saw HAT neither updated their hardware in the last 15 years nor did they do any renovations. At the same time my setup at home has seen significant improvements, so it almost always wins in terms of convenience.
On top of that: there's just so much stuff these days in terms of entertainment, and I have a lot less time and energy than I had say 10 years ago. So the "competition" for my free time has also become more intense.

But to end a bit more positively: I'm glad that HAT is doing well in streaming and I really hope this is enough to give us a second film with a similar quality.
 


I might be weird, but I just can't do movies, be it in cinema or at home. I always feel it's rushed or the pacing is off. A movie is the same length as 2-3 series episodes, not much time for much development and immersion.

Buy I'm also the weirdo that refuses to read the ~80 last pages of any novel because I can't stand ending. It seems I like a never-ending cliff hanger!
 

I might be weird, but I just can't do movies, be it in cinema or at home. I always feel it's rushed or the pacing is off. A movie is the same length as 2-3 series episodes, not much time for much development and immersion.

Buy I'm also the weirdo that refuses to read the ~80 last pages of any novel because I can't stand ending. It seems I like a never-ending cliff hanger!
You don't finish novels you choose to read and like? Like...ever?
 

I might be weird, but I just can't do movies, be it in cinema or at home. I always feel it's rushed or the pacing is off. A movie is the same length as 2-3 series episodes, not much time for much development and immersion.
I am more or less exactly of the opposite end of the spectrum - with series I often feel like they are wasting my time and there's a lot of unnecessary padding. But if you have become accustomed to the slower pace, I can understand why you aren't enjoying movies so much.

The book part admittedly leaves me a bit puzzled (I either stop early or finish the book, or least try to do so).
 

Remove ads

Top