NarniaWeb Community Forums

Here is the thing though, The Lady of the Green Kirtle, while very important, doesnt have that much screentime. And seeing how the SC doesnt have the Pevensies or much battles, I don't think it will be done as a big action blockbuster. Which is why I think, if offered, Kate may not refuse it. Then again it really depends on how the script is written and what other actors are starring in the role.

Since the Lady of the Green Kirtle is a very mysterious character who we don't know about, Kate could play her in very different ways...I mean, she doesnt have to play her as just a shallow villain. And since the role (unless they really expand it) would only take about 2 weeks to film, I don't think it would be something that would take up too much of her "serious" work.

Kate would be perfect! and your right when you say that it wouldn't take too much time. She is SO BEAUTIFUL!! and she's really like greceful, or i dunno like just perfect

Josh wrote:Here is the thing though, The Lady of the Green Kirtle, while very important, doesnt have that much screentime. And seeing how the SC doesnt have the Pevensies or much battles, I don't think it will be done as a big action blockbuster. Which is why I think, if offered, Kate may not refuse it. Then again it really depends on how the script is written and what other actors are starring in the role.

Since the Lady of the Green Kirtle is a very mysterious character who we don't know about, Kate could play her in very different ways...I mean, she doesn't have to play her as just a shallow villain. And since the role (unless they really expand it) would only take about 2 weeks to film, I don't think it would be something that would take up too much of her "serious" work.

Even though you did talk about the characters role being exanded from the book it can be expanded a lot into script like you said but I have to disagree in only showing up for two weeks. On a huge production like this it takes a long time to set up scenes (even for the same one) you've got the set you want to film at for a couple of hours (take that down, take down the lighting and dollies, going to a diferent location etc) and reset takes up pretty much the entire day. Kate would be looking at two -three months of filming her scenes because of this and having to get other principal characters to be filmed and wait to do her scenes.

I just don't see an actress like Kate Winslet wasting her time doing a movie like Narnia. She's right now four years away to being middle aged. They need someone younger from 21-30 years of age.

i have to disagree, she isn't too old she would be absolutely perfect for lotgk

What about Megan Fox? She's beautiful, and has the look that could also work well for a seductive villainess. Besides it would draw in a lot of the male audience (especially teenagers)...and we all know this franchise needs all of the help it can get.

I know she hasnt been in any movies that have showed much acting talent. Though its really because the movies she's been in (Transformers, Jennifer's Body) have put her in roles that pretty much just ask for her look hot. Its what the directors wanted.

I think if she got the role and tried she could play it well and get taken more seriously as an actress.

i don't know. i don't think megan fox would be right for lotgk. she just doesn't seem like the right type of woman for that role

Megan Fox is just like the description for LOGK. She's gorgeous, men lust after her, she's very cat like and flawless, she is LOGK. Megan to me would be a good candidate, then again I don't know if she'll do something like Narnia. But one can never know.

edmundrox12: LOGK needs to be younger, like in her twenties not 38.

Hmm, if Megan could alter her voice a bit (Like Liv did for Arwen), then I'd say go for it.

She's about the best looking girl out there, it would bring in more male viewers, and she looks like the kind of girl that could lure a guy but have a dark intention. I never pictured the Lady of the Green Kirtle with black hair, but I guess it could work.

I really don't want to see an actress selected based upon how many fanboys she has lusting after her. And can Megan Fox even act? Seems like the only thing that gets her movie roles is her looks, because she certainly hasn't demonstrated any kind of impressive acting ability.

While Megan Fox wouldn't be too bad for the role, I think she would need to work on making her voice sound a lot less whiny.

She needs to work on acting in general...

I wouldn't really like to see Megan in this movie. Her work since the Transformers films have proven that she alone isn't a box office draw. At all. She also hasn't proven she has the chops to bring anything unique or memorable to the role.

If they're going to go with a "big name," go with someone who is talented and not just a pretty face. I would honestly prefer they cast an unknown that can knock the role out of the park than someone well known who won't do it justice.

Bookwyrm wrote:I really don't want to see an actress selected based upon how many fanboys she has lusting after her. And can Megan Fox even act? Seems like the only thing that gets her movie roles is her looks, because she certainly hasn't demonstrated any kind of impressive acting ability.

Thats partially because the directors of Transformers and Jonah Hex give her roles that don't really require acting ability. I read an article that while filming Transformers when Megan was asking a question about her character, Michael Bay said "Just shut up and look hot." (Horrible, I know).

One thing I've noticed is that when an actress is good looking, a lot of roles they are given are made just to show off their looks. So far, Megan hasnt gotten any roles that have required much acting. If she CAN act (and it would be up to the filmakers to determine if she can) then I wouldnt mind her getting the role. But she should lower her voice a bit.

I mean, I completely agree with that, Josh. I'm not even going to get into my feelings on Michael Bay , but unfortunately for Megan (depending how you look at it), she has just been cast in roles so far that have required her to be attractive and nothing else. The best acting I've seen her do so far, ironically, is in Eminem's new music video.

Like you say, if she can act, I wouldn't begrudge her the role, it's just at this point in her career I haven't seen anything that proves she can do it justice.

I think that's just it. If Megan Fox can in fact act, and the film makers choose her for the role, than why not? If the producers and director think she is fit to play an iconic role such as the Lady of the Green Kirtle, than who am I to judge? Afterall, weren't we all a little suspicious of Ben Barnes (then again, he had far better roles, and could act much better than I've seen that Megan can...).

megan would be horrible because she is just a pretty face, not an actress. i realized something i never thought of before. what if Liv Tyler played lotgk? she could be great!!

I'm sure Megan Fox can act the role very well if she was given the chance to in the film. Most movie roles that is given to her barely has character to it and because a director wants someone who is too pretty for the role. Like Josh said and I completely agree with him, the director of Transformers just told her to "look hot"

You can tell how deeply passionate an actor can be if they ask questions about their character. If Megan was willing to ask, she was willing to make the effort, so again I disagree completely with a lot of you.