Sunday, May 30, 2010

JOSEPH FIENNES AND EVA GREEN JOIN NEW HISTORICAL SAGA "CAMELOT"

Back in March we've told you that Starz was planning to shoot "Camelot" historical TV show with the team that made "The Tudors", and now we have the first casting updates. With the original new approach to the timeless Arthurian legend the producers are planning to weave authenticity into a modern telling of the Arthur legends that is relatable to contemporary audiences. Now, with the shooting scheduled for June in Ireland, "Camelot" also has the first stars: young Jamie Campbell Bower ("Harry Potter", "Game of Thrones", "New Moon") will appear as King Arthur while lovely Tamsin Egerton ("St. Trinians") will play Guinevere. Two more famous names include Eva Green, who is supposed to play sorceress Morgana la Fay, and Joseph Fiennes with whom the producers are negotiating around the role of Merlin. HOLLYWOOD SPY will keep you posted on the casting process.

22 comments:

  1. Eva Green doing a TV series? Well I can't say I don't find seeing more of Eva exciting but this seems sort of a strange move for her. Are there no more good film roles out there?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure, but I think this will probably be one of those series which have around ten episodes per season, but maybe I'm not right.
    I think this could do a lot for her, since she isn't that much known around the world. This could help her get noticed more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if they're planning for a 'saucier' version of Camelot, hence the Eva Green casting. I like her ever since Casino Royale (best Bond girl IMO), and Joseph Fiennes is a wonderful actor. Thanks for the tip, Dez, I didn't even know about this project.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hadn't heard, either. And movie stars appearing on TV has been a hot trend for a few years now. Actors look at it as 'hip.' Or more exposure and money - one of the two!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I'll say Eva Green as a sorceress definitely sounds "saucy".

    ReplyDelete
  6. @RTM and ALEX and ANSWER
    now, people, you know I'm always writing about historical and fantasy projects, so HOLLYWOOD SPY usually never misses any of those in the updates. In my previous posts, throughout last year, you could read about my three, most anticipated, 2011 TV series - CAMELOT for Starz, GAME OF THRONES for HBO and THE BORGIAS for Showtime. Both CAMELOT and THE BORGIAS will be done by my favourite team which stands behind THE TUDORS, ELIZABETH, ELIZABETH THE GODLDEN AGE ..... Use the SEARCH bottom in the right upper corner of the sidebar to find more about these projects in HOLLYWOOD SPY :)

    I personally don't like Eva Green but the role of Morgana usually is a bit crazy, weird and evil, so I guess she could fit in it. I'm also not sure about young Jamie playing Arthur, but I'm satisfied with Tamsin and Fiennes.
    The only thing I find a bit weird is why did they choose this particular topic when we already have a very successful BBC's MERLIN series which also gives a modern look onto the Camelot.
    But since MERLIN is a kids-friendly series, I guess CAMELOT will be sexier and naughtier especially since it's being produced by STARZ :))

    ReplyDelete
  7. Merlin is a complicated role to fill. In my opinion, I am not so sure Joseph Fiennes fits the character. I am not convinced with Arthur's role either. But then again in costume and settings, actors can surprise us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Dezmond - since it's Starz it will probably stream on Netflix, they stream everything else from Starz, so I'll be interested to see if this happens. Hopefully it's not all crappy CGI like that Spartacus show they have going on though.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Avalon
    I think Fiennes could be a very unique in magnificent Merlin. It's true that costumes and settings can change the way we look upon certain celebs.

    @Answer
    Oh, I love SPARTACUS, it's a very unique and groundbreaking series and it shows the complex social and political life in ancient Rome, and it's visually revolutionary as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If by "revolutionary" you mean all the outside backgrounds are awful CGI shots, then I would agree. ;) It makes 300 look realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yep, I already got used to hearing this kind of remark from people who don't really watch the show and are not familiar with the story and with the essence of the whole plot. CGI shots of the outside backgrounds are used in that way with a reason. They've actually used CGI in that way to paint barren land, gloomy skies, monotonous rocks and non-moving air all around in order to emphasize the cold, brutal and restrictive atmosphere of the prison those gladiators are held in. It is actually an extremely suggestive and expressive use of CGI.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's still extremely poor CGI Dezz. :) If some viewers find it expressive, good for them. But you can't blame the others for seeing it as something of a low quality, something that shatters the illusion of a real world/story that this series is trying to relate. For some it makes the atmosphere, for others it breaks the atmosphere.

    I've heard this series did very well, and I'm sorry about the whole situation concerning main actor (sorry for him and his viewers both). I myself wasn't interested in this series even before its start. And I wasn't thrilled with what I've seen in first episode either.

    I'm still waiting for the trailer for this Camelot. I also think Fiennes could convincing Merlin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. yes, Bels, but the fact is that you personally belong to the same group I've mentioned in my previous comment - the people who haven't watched SPARTACUS regularly and thus you don't really get the role of such CGI in the whole plot.
    Calling it an extremely poor CGI is even offensive to creative people who made a huge step forward with this show. The artistic and inspiring way they've used CGI in battle scenes, in arena, in sets, in painting the surroundings, is something all of you can only dream of achieving in your respective professions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Go easy with the praises Dezz. :)) We've seen same effects many times before. Some of them even in a same way. There is nothing creative about that. Maybe such effects suit some situations, but that's it. Other effects still produce the unwanted effect some people complain about.
    No amount of regular, or repeat viewing, would make me, or others like me change our position. Because we're right, simple as that. Not because we can't "adapt" to see it from your perspective. And why should we? Why should we not call this "extremely poor CGI" when it is so? We're not bad or disrespectful because of that. I even don't believe CGI designers would find themselves offended. I respect their work. I just don't respect their results. Some of the choices art directors used are just not for everyone's liking. Or even for praise.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh, I just love when you deliberately skip my point because you can't beat it :) The point is that you are being disrespectful towards the authors because you are criticizing even though you haven't watched the show regularly. You can criticize a whole album based just on one song, and you can't criticize a whole series based just on a few episodes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There was no "your point" to be skipped Dez. :) I never criticized the show as a whole.:) I said I didn't liked it because of this and that, which were my preferences. That wasn't critique. It was opinion.
    What I did criticized, in abundance, was poor CGI (and some of work of art directors). Does someone need to watch the whole show to do that? Of course not. Your comparison with albums and songs doesn't serve any purpose.

    At times, I do speak of things in which you have more extensive knowledge(than me). And that ticks you off. :) Sadly, most of those times you're too emotionally involved to see my point. Basically, we're different in way we "like or dislike" things.
    You often go "all out" in your likes and dislikes. When it's about something you find worthy, it's almost impossible for others to find a flaw in it. No matter the arguments.
    I'm more of a "gray area". And because of that, I respond much better to specific arguments.
    I also make clear distinctions (to those who wish to see it) in things that are my opinions and/or preferences, and things that are facts. I can't be held responsible for people that mix those up.

    I didn't write all this to make you Dezz sound like some emotional or ignorant person. You're among the few people I know that are so knowledgable, reasonable, and realistic. :) It's just that I'm on a whole other level of reasoning.

    It would do you well to remember this when dealing with me. :)))
    In other words, I'll always consider myself right in my reasoning. :) Even if (when?) I'm wrong in my conclusions, the only way to (maybe?) prove me otherwise is to argue the specifics of those points themselves. Not my understanding of a topic as a whole. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anything with Joseph or Ralph Fiennes is a must-see!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Bels
    oh, I just love when you use an excuse of me being emotionally biased whenever you skip my point and can't beat it with an argument :)
    I didn't say you criticized the whole show, don't twist my words - I said, and the point was - that as someone who didn't watch the whole show you can't get the clear picture of the role of such CGI in the whole story, and thus cannot say such bad things about it. Watching just a few episodes you didn't get the suggestive effect of such CGI on the whole plot. Those CGI grow on you while you watch the whole show and you get to understand their meaning and aim. That's the main and the essential argument you just keep deliberately skipping because you always have to be the wise guy (which doesn't mean we don't love you off course, but you do deserve a good spanking from time to time :)

    @Nadir
    the Fiennes bros rock :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Think what you will Dezz. :) I never skip around or pursue different topics while debating others. Most people do that, even unknowingly. Not me. I know very well what I do and say.
    Just as I know what others say. Do not accuse me of twisting your words. I have no need to twist somebody's "words". I never did before, and frankly, I wouldn't know how to do it so now.

    And CGI still remains bad, like I said form the start. Unless they improved during the tenure of the show. Which is possible. I haven't seen anything past the first episode.

    But I will address your argument. Even if you haven't respected any of mine. Even if I didn't see the point in explaining that specific thing until now. (Just so I can prove to you I'm more reasonable, and more focused than you. :) )

    Basically, your (...last...) argument is CGI grows on you, and after a while you realise it's a "God's gift" to this show. It's so good, there's really no need to search for any flaws in it. Because... ...there aren't any. Everything just falls in its place.
    Well, excuse me Dezz, but that's not important to many of us. It's more important that CGI is decent enough from the get-go because that when most of us decide if that said CGI is good enough for this show.
    I for one (and many will agree), don't need something that an "acquired taste". Such tastes are usually not good for you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Nadir - I agree XD

    I've been waiting for that kind of movie/tv-show for a long time. Morgan and Merlin are my favorite characters in the Arthurian Legends (and also Arthur).
    I don't know about Jamie... I don't see him as Arthur, but it's my opinion. Joseph Fiennes as Merlin? Yes! So Merlin and Dumbledore are related xD xD xD
    I don't know Eva Green that much. Would be interesting to see how she'll do as Morgan. :D

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry! XD I meant Merlin and Voldemort! xD

    ReplyDelete
  22. Glad you're excited about the show, Hana. If you put CAMELOT in the search button in my right sidebar you will find lots of other posts on CAMELOT with many great pics ;)

    ReplyDelete

GIVE SOME LOVE TO YOUR DEZZY :)