Who are Cinema's Most Boring and Uninteresting Characters?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,542
And what makes them so memorably boring and uninteresting ?:)
 
I'm trying to think, what was his name? You know in that one movie, the one that's like the other one but not as good? No, the other guy, the really boring one...
 
Anything played by Jim Carrey
Everything character he plays is one note and one tone. You just get the same performance again and again and again.
With the exception of his playing of Peter Appleton in The Majestic.
The film is great and I think highly underrated. And for me, Jim Carrey is actually watchable.
 
Ernest P, Worrell started out as a commercial and for some reason, someone in Hollywood thought his character would interesting make make films around .
 
Really? I can’t recall a single thing about him.

Perhaps a different actor in the role of Luke? One actors that Lucas considered for the role was Bruce Boxleitner .:)
 
I don't think that Elijah Wood did Frodo any favours. Ian Holm as Bilbo was only on screen for a fraction of the time and was far more memorable.
To be honest, Bilbo was always more interesting as a character than Frodo, even in the books.

I liked Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo. :)
 
Frodo was actually the dullest of all the hobbits.
Sam was the most complex and interesting.
Merry and Pippin were the most naughty and playful (and young, of course.)
Bilbo was somewhere in between.

Frodo had decided to be the hero from the very beginning. And expected to do it all on his own.
He didn't expect the others to come with him from Crickhollow.
He didn't expect anyone to come with him from Rivendel. ("I shall take it to Mordor, but I don't know the way.")
He didn't expect anyone to come with him from Rauros.
He was committed, pure and mostly unimaginative.
The burden of the ring suited him down to the ground.
I'm not saying he wasn't required. He was vital to the story
But if he'd been in Monty Python he'd have played the accountant who mistakenly dreamed he was a lion tamer.
 
I liked Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo. :)

Yes, whilst the movies were not at all representative of the book, the movie made some casting decisions with Eddie Izzard, Billy Connolly, Stephen Fry and Martin Freeman (amongst others).
 
Frodo was actually the dullest of all the hobbits.
Sam was the most complex and interesting.
Merry and Pippin were the most naughty and playful (and young, of course.)
Bilbo was somewhere in between.

Frodo had decided to be the hero from the very beginning. And expected to do it all on his own.
He didn't expect the others to come with him from Crickhollow.
He didn't expect anyone to come with him from Rivendel. ("I shall take it to Mordor, but I don't know the way.")
He didn't expect anyone to come with him from Rauros.
He was committed, pure and mostly unimaginative.
The burden of the ring suited him down to the ground.
I'm not saying he wasn't required. He was vital to the story
But if he'd been in Monty Python he'd have played the accountant who mistakenly dreamed he was a lion tamer.


In all honesty Sam would have been the most competent Ring bearer. But the outcome of the mission was down to the fallibility of Frodo as much as anything else.
 
Sam would have failed because of self doubt.
He needed to be subservient to Frodo to keep himself on track.
 
Michael J Pollard was a master at playing boring and uninteresting characters.

William Katt was the almost Luke Skywalker. I think he would have been miscast because his personality is kind of cynical and that would have clashed with Ford doing the same. Hamill had a natural "gee whiz" attitude which worked better given the absurd fantasy elements.
It's a thankless role however since he is supposed to be the Arthurian knight in training but he is kind of nebbish and part of an ensemble where he is diminished by the others as well as the technological and magical support.
Ioan Gruffudd in the Hornblower tv movies came out looking better because he was more of the focus and it didn't have the technology or magic crutch to detract from his actions like Luke had.
 
Michael J Pollard was a master at playing boring and uninteresting characters.

William Katt was the almost Luke Skywalker. I think he would have been miscast because his personality is kind of cynical and that would have clashed with Ford doing the same. Hamill had a natural "gee whiz" attitude which worked better given the absurd fantasy elements.
It's a thankless role however since he is supposed to be the Arthurian knight in training but he is kind of nebbish and part of an ensemble where he is diminished by the others as well as the technological and magical support.
Ioan Gruffudd in the Hornblower tv movies came out looking better because he was more of the focus and it didn't have the technology or magic crutch to detract from his actions like Luke had.

All Pacino and Sylvester Stallone were both considered for the role of Han Solo. Lucas originally wanted Toshiro Mifune for the role of Obiwan.
 
Kurt Russell would have made a good Han Solo. Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness' roles could easily have been reversed too (as could Darth and Chewy).
 
I'm not so sure about Dave Prose and Peter Mayhew switching roles. Okay they are both tall [ 1.98 and 2.21 m respectively ].
Dave was a bodybuilder with a lot of physical presence, perfect for the character Darth Vader, while Peter was kind of tall and thin and in the Wookie suit more alien.
It could have been made to work, but having a 1.98 m Wookie next to a 1.85 m Han Solo would not have so striking and different.
And Toshiro Mifune would have been great and Obi-Wan.
 
How to get your contrarian street cred:

1. Select the most exciting and beloved film trilogy of all time.
2. Focus on the heroic adventurer at the heart of the action.
3. Call that guy boring.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top