why the hell did they cast such an old ripley? he looks like he's 40. this story doesnt even make sense for 40 year old men. still this show is better than 99.999999% of high profile shows in the last 2 years. that's how bad shows have gotten.
share
Do you think the character died in his youth or something?? 🙄
And Andrew Scott is an amazing actor - shows how much you know. [shrug]
I got used to it, his acting is great.
shareComplain to anyone who'll listen!
shareRipley and Dickie were supposed to be close to 40 in this adaption. It’s about 10 yrs after their college days where you see how they’ve been living or not living in Ripley’s case. It was by design. I believe they want to do the rest of the books. A Ripliad. Best to stay with one actor as the five books were published from 1955 to 1991. Then again, he may well be into his 60s by then. The 1999 movie and Purple Noon are also different from each other and the novel. Andrew Scott is really good as this version of Ripley.
sharei think you are right. i hadnt seen the whole show yet before i commented.
shareI assumed you were referring to Freddie Miles. Surprised nobody has brought that up yet
shareBrought up what? The stunt casting of Sting's offspring? Or the stunt casting of an androgynous character just to be hip? Or both?
shareWas that Stings kid? oh ffs that is the cherry on top
It's art i guess and i just don't get it
The character is better in every version of the movie and the novel. I like this production but it has some issues; this being one.
Not art, stunt casting.
I thought it was a tad drawn out. I appreciate slower paced stories but i thought this could have been wrapped up a few eps earlier.
I mean in the Alan Delon one the whole second half is him walking around enjoying his new fortune while evading capture but it gets away with it. With this one it was almost frozen in time it seemed him moving from hotel to hotel with not that much jeopardy, it never felt like they were closing in on him
That said though i would like to see same team continue with the rest of the books that has been talked about, feel like ive seen this version enough now knowing little about the rest
Agreed that four episodes would have made more sense.
shareIt was a woke choice and it backfired. It pulled me out of my viewing experience seeing someone looking like a boy dressed up as a man playing Freddie and expecting me to believe they are good friends with Dickie.
shareI thought Andrew Scott was brillant and not just in this series. Added a lot more to the character than Matt Damon did in his Ripley movie (which I still enjoyed though). What I've read is that Scotts Ripley is closer to the books than others before him.
That said, I wasn't really into the casting of Eliot Summer as Freddie. They surely got talent - in music as well (Stings daughter) - but they just didn't do it as the character Freddie for me. Maybe I'm biased because I enjoyed the Freddie played by Philipp Seymour Hoffman so much.
Eliot Sumner was stunt casting androgynous child of famous person playing an extreme heterosexual (both movies, novel) as androgynous.
Had my post in the open tab since yesterday without posting it until today. Didn't even see until now, that this casting-decision already came up. So it seems I'm not alone with the issue of this miscasting.
shareFreddie in the book was stupid, oafish and homophobic (at least as viewed by Tom), so making him sharp, observant and homosexual was a complete rewrite of the character. The change didn't affect the overall story line in any way. I think Sumner did an excellent job of portraying the Freddie of the series, just as Hoffman did an excellent job portraying the Freddie of the movie.
shareNo she wasn't an awful Actor or anything but that's not the point, they introduce a character whom most ppl watching the show know and are expecting and it's extremely jarring that this young girl shows up and nobody bats an eyelid in the show which is set in the 60's as well
We know why they are doing it and it pisses ppl off because it's a complete disrespect to the viewer who are signing up for an engaging story and to escape from real world bullshit not to be party to their retarded politics
Thankfully she only has about 4 lines otherwise i think a lot would have not finished the series
I don't think people were bothered nearly as much as you assume because the episode with Freddie interrogating Tom had the 3rd highest rating. Most viewers would not have read the novel. Viewers who had only seen the Matt Damon version would have been more jarred by Ripley not being portrayed as a gay lovesick puppy. If a screenwriter is going to rewrite a character from a novel, I'd personally prefer that it be a minor character, not the main one.
We do know the reason for the character change and casting choice because the writer/director has explained it: Zaillian liked the subtle menace that Sumner brought to the role, compared to the other actors just trying to recreate Hoffman's version of Freddie.
'We do know the reason for the character change and casting choice because the writer/director has explained it: Zaillian liked the subtle menace that Sumner brought to the role'
Bollocks!
Why do you say Freddie is homosexual in the series? I saw no evidence of sexual orientation. I saw an androgynous character. I am open to your thoughts.
shareMostly because when Ravini goes to Freddie's hotel room, he finds Max in the bed. And later when Max phones Tom, he makes it sound as though they are a couple... "we missed you in Cortina".
shareI forgot about that scene. Thanks.
shareNo worries. One more thought is that Tom apparently got a gay vibe from him. He told the inspector that Freddie had a habit of picking up strange men. I don't think he would have risked saying that unless he had a gut instinct about it.
That might have been hinted about at their first meeting. After being told that Freddie is a playwright, Tom says he would have guessed something like that. Freddie challenges him with an almost accusatory "Why?", and Tom replies "I don't know."
Good points.
shareFreddie is not homosexual. He fits in with this cast as Hoffman did with 1999 film. Freddie is reptilian and his eyes pierce into the already piercing dead eyes of Tom. They say: I know you’re up to no good. It’s a short scene, but it’s powerful. Hints of the homoerotic were in Damon’s depiction of Tom and how he idolized Dickie as played by the golden Jude Law. Reference the bath scene. Scott’s Tom is not sexual at all. There are although two things they mention - the robe and the muscle guys on the beach, but he’s totally an observer in life.
shareThat would be my interpretation.
shareI like Scott as an actor but he looked full of shit since day one. With Damon, you could buy the innocent act.
shareDamon wasn't innocent though i don't know why ppl think he was. He wasn't out and out evil but he was definitely sneaky with dark potential.
In the French version Dickie knows Riply's full of shit and he doesn't really hide it, he's just arrogant and complacent enough to let it play out bevause he finds it amusing, until it's too late.
What I meant is the innocent facade he put up. Of course someone who murders and steal isn't innocent, ffs
share[deleted]