There is no doubt that RA is good looking, of course, but there are many equally good-looking men in the world. It is the combination of talent and looks which sets RA apart to his countless fans. So, yes, he "sells DVDs", but not merely because of his looks. And I wouldn't think casting directors would be opposed to an actor because he is cute-- if he can play the role well, I would think that would be a plus .

As for the Guy of Gisborne role, it was an "evil" character, so I think Bard would be different enough for him and the casting directors-- unless he is severly opposed to being attractive again . But I've heard he's a huge Tolkien fan himself, and this will be such an enormous film, that I seriously doubt he'd turn it down. And he can always make himself especially "grim" if he wants .

It's generally acknowledged that most people (not just me) like to see good looking actors in movies - it always puts more backsides on cinema seats. LotR had it just right - Cate and Liv for the blokes, Viggo and Orlando for the girls! As for the casting directors being put off by RA's role as Guy of Gisborne, I doubt that would bother them because the percentage of the world's population that has actually seen him in that role (or any other role for that matter) is tiny. Most people - especially those outside of the UK - have never even heard of him. Which is just right for a movie like The Hobbit.

I think trying to stress his acting credentials after you've 'fessed up to the fact his presence alone is what sells DVD's and basically making the generalisation that women will only watch a film if it's got a nice bit of trouser in it ("I hope GdT remembers that women make up half of his audience...Richard Armitage sells DVD's") is a bit like trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted (or in this case the rampant stallion of a man). Maybe i'm being a bit 'holier than thou' but being a guy we dont get 'totty concessions': you dont see Lucy Pinder as Arwen and Michelle Marsh as Galadriel and nor would i want to- thinking 'Phwoar i would' isnt what these stories is about. I dont mean that film-makers should only cast uglies (for what it's worth Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are not exactly mingers- not by a long shot) and i'm not really 'opposed' to Richard Armitage (he's like Martin Freeman- an obvious, anonymous choice who 'will do') but if he's cast i want it to be for the right reasons rather than to placate the female half of the audience. Anyway- never fear, you've always got Thranduil . I think Armitage's role of Guy of Gisbourne will probably be his undoing anyway- he wont want to be typecast if he's any kind of actor (i think i read an interview where he said he wanted to shave his hair for his role in 'spooks' and play someone really ugly) and the casting directors wont want him because it's so similar to what he's done immediately before.

We want our totty!!! And we're unlikely to get it anywhere else in The Hobbit. I hope that GdT remembers that women make up half of his audience, and that WOMEN BUY MORE DVDs THAN MEN! (That's a well-researched fact). It's also well known that Richard Armitage sells DVDs (well, not literally )

But he sells DVDs, not because he's a 'bit of totty', but because he's a brilliant, compelling and versatile ACTOR. He wouldn't have such a large and loyal fanbase if he wasn't.

Well i'm not going to beat around the bush or mince my words- i think a good amount of the support for Richard Armitage comes simply from the fact a lot of you gals fancy him. He's a good actor but i think the 'totty factor' motivates the passion of his advocacy.

Right, since pictures seem to be in style i thought i'd grab a few of Christopher Eccleston looking suitably 'Bard like' (by which i mean has a beard- de rigeur in all middle-earth circles).
[img]http://www.redcross.org.uk/uploads/images/Chris-190.jpg[/img]
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cpOTAlPbAFY/R2nYMCf4SnI/AAAAAAAAASM/n1d-vjQzc9M/s320/Christopher%2BEccleston.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/02-20_ChristopherEcclestonIsDrWhoNo9.jpg[/img]

"Their captain was Bard, grim-voiced and grim-faced"...I think this picture illustrates at least the "grim-faced" bit, and anyone who has heard that beautiful, expressive voice MUST agree that he could so easily do the "grim-voiced" bit as well!!

I like Christopher Ecclestone and I think he made a GREAT Dr Who, but that was because of his quirky looks...quirky doesn't quite cut it for Bard...

I must admit I would be heartbroken if the role of Bard was simplified at all... he's the most rewarding thing to me in the book, and I've always been sad there was so little of him. So if they shorten him further... I would cry... like I did when they cut Faramir and Eowyn's story short (my favorite part of the trilogy, alas...)

Dispossessed kings seem to be de rigeur in fantasy - they wander about all over the place, from Middle Earth to Earthsea, Narnia to Stormhold... I suppose that's inevitable in lands populated by marauding goblins, dragons, witches and other covetous creatures.

The return of a king makes such a satisfying story (though, sadly, not for Thorin) that I think most viewers wouldn't complain about a bit of repetition. And besides, who'd want to miss out on such an amusing clash of personalities as that between noble Bard and the sly, petulant Master of Esgaroth?

Time for another picture! Here's Bard looking really grim...



Bard's really a lot like Aragorn isn't he? Starts off as a shadowy, rather suspicious character and is gradually revealed as a brave and noble warrior. Only it happens a lot quicker in Bard's case as he's only in the book for the last five minutes...

Hmmm... Christopher Ecclestone would make rather a good troll...

"You're a bit outnumbered here, DD" Heh, so i see, though it's not exactly a mystery why , good actor though Armitage is, i would note the proportion of female advocates. And surely you're not comparing Christopher Eccleston to trolls, goblins and Gollum Dalgonar?

Bard's introduction, and the entire matter of the geopolitical relations of Esgaroth, Dale and the Iron Hills to Erebor is a challenge for the films. It does come rather as a shock as the reader exits Mirkwood with Bilbo and the barrels. The 'Rohan reveal' of TTT is probably a fair likeness for the kind of thing that will have to happen, though i would suspect Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson would be perfectly aware of the possible recycling of formats and be looking for other ways to manage it. It may be that the idea's introduced in the Unexpected Party with the dwarves discussing these places in terms of aid they could give or as possible rest-stops.

To be honest i wouldnt be too pissed off if they decided to simplify the whole Bard/Laketown/Dale matter by having him as the established ruler of laketown with no reference made to Dale (perhaps a 'cameo' as a burnt town ravaged by Smaug but nothing special). With Aragorn and Thorin already in peoples minds, a third returning king strikes me as unnecessary. Perhaps if that's the case Dale could reappear as the town the people of laketown were driven from but i think in this case simplicity wont jar.

Christopher Eccleston.... eh.

I wonder if they'll do any flashes to Lake Town before Bilbo and the Dwarves actually get there-- you know, set the background a little, like they did with Rohan in the Two Towers. Otherwise, I guess there's no way we'd see Bard until the second film.

You're a bit outnumbered here, DD! And why do we need an 'idiosyncratic looking' Bard when the whole of the movie will be crowded with 'idiosyncratic looking' characters... Bilbo and assorted hobbits, Gandalf, thirteen dwarves, Beorn, trolls, goblins, Gollum, etc?


Come on... this must be any sane casting director’s ONLY choice for Bard!

As a belated reply to your question of a while back, Lalaithiel, about Bard’s role being expanded, I’ve just read the PJ/GdT interview in ‘Empire’ (it came out a month later in the Oz edition) – they were asked if they were working to introduce Bard earlier in the film than he is in the book. Here’s a condensed version of PJ’s answer: ‘We’re doing stuff like that… trying to make the book a little less random.’ ‘We try to… structure the films in such a way that nothing is random and nothing comes out of the blue in such a convenient way as it does two or three times during the novel.’ Here’s hoping that Bard will make an earlier, and less random, first appearance!

Bard should be introduced (at the very latest) during Bilbo and the dwarves initial visit to Laketown (before they set out for the Lonely Mountain). It’s interesting that in the book, after Bilbo leaves the mountain with the Arkenstone and is captured by the elves, he tells them who he is and says: ‘Bard will remember me, and it is Bard I particularly want to see.’ So Bard MUST have been around and become well known to Bilbo during that visit, even though there’s no mention of him in the book!

Meh,i dont really agree with the Armitage suggestion, mainly for the reason Dalgonar cites as being a good thing- he could play any fantasy hero. There is nothing about Richard Armitage that shouts 'BARD!' to me, that exclusive match of character and actor which once formed is impossible to break in your mind's eye. He's also very much of the chiselled style of features- all long noses and brooding eyes which has been pretty much spelled out as the realm of Numenorean facial features and personally after LotR personally i'm getting a tad bored of that (Richard Armitage would make a good Hirgon- a Sean Bean/Boromir lite).

My preference for Bard would be Christopher Eccleston. He's more idiosyncratic looking, more interesting in his facial features (though he does still have the 'grim-faced' quality of Bard). He also strikes me as far more of a loner, an unlikely hero than the tall bloke with the aquiline nose and heavy eyebrows and these are qualties i think Bard needs.

Hey, check this out: http://www.richardarmitageonline.com/richard-armitage-biography.html
Looks like his favorite books growing up were Hobbit and LOTR, and he was in a stage version of the Hobbit

Jim Caviezel and Sean Patrick Flanery, eh? Interesting. I could sorta see either of them... but Richard still tops them, of course.

I just had an inspiration, I think Sean Patrick Flanery might make a good Bad, too.

I can see him playing the part of Bard, but i think Jim Caviezel would be an awesome Bard.

Yes,he could play him I guess. Sounds like he could do a great job as Bard.

Richard Armitage would be the most amazing Bard.

He's an accomplished actor, tall, dark athletic and has an amazing screen presence. He can shoot, ride and fight and carries off physically demanding scenes with ease. He has a beautiful, melodic speaking voice which can range from soft and affectionate to hard and harsh as his roles demand.

Who can compare?

Sorry for last post - I was hoping the picture would appear on the site but my html must be incorrect. Basically it is a screencap that fits the text I quoted really well.... never mind, at least I tried! I heard GDT has now bought a house in Wellington and the scripts may be completed. Fingers crossed for our casting wishes!

Sorry for last post - I was hoping the picture would appear on the site but my html must be incorrect. Basically it is a screencap that fits the text I quoted really well.... never mind, at least I tried! I heard GDT has now bought a house in Wellington and the scripts may be completed. Fingers crossed for our casting wishes!