Jump to content

Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball in “Being the Ricardos”


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yeah. Still not sure about this either. I know Kidman can 'transform' herself but all I can think of is Bewitched and how bad that was when I hear she's playing Lucille Ball. LOL. I'm trying to keep an open mind as, of course, this movie is very different than that hot garbage.

 

I feel like for movies like this they go for a 'star' instead of finding the right actor to embody the person. But who knows, she may surprise us? I like the tone of the promo but I'm just not sure. I think it was more 'highlight the trademark red hair' more than hiding Nicole's face but it could be both. I mean, it's Nicole Kidman playing Lucille Ball. Hence why they probably could have gone for someone else.

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Exactly. I'm not saying get Messing (as Faulkner said below, NK gets them attention), but get someone who more embodies the role. But I guess they're going for a different kind of movie so I'm willing to give them some leeway on the iffy casting of literally everyone. We'll see.

 

 

Yes to Cate Blanchett. She was attached at first but then replaced by Kidman. Seriously.

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/01/nicole-kidman-replacing-cate-blanchett-sorkin-being-the-ricardos-1234608713/

 

I forgot Lucie Arnaz was involved. I like she takes care/control of her parents image but I do question this one.

 

There was definitely some 'flack' online about Kidman taking on the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This was the chance to cast two under-the-radar actors who could truly transform themselves and melt into their roles in the way that Halle Berry (Introducing Dorothy Dandridge), Judy Davis (Judy Garland), Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Jonathan Rhys Myers (Elvis Presley) did with the real life people they portrayed but instead, they chose to go with two stars who will have viewers trying hard to forget that it's Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem playing Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

I'm not sure I would have cared for Debra Messing either (been there, done that).

I get it, people think big stars and Oscar winners are a slam dunk but why not have an open call or again, actors who are still under the radar, who won't make viewers strain during the entire movie to forget who they are IRL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly! And if lesser-known actors never got a chance then they would never become big stars or Oscar winners....

I'm sure there are other examples, but the one that comes directly to mind is the casting of Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind". She was definitely not a big name in 1938, but she got the role anyway, even though practically all the big names in Hollywood wanted the role, and we all know the result.... 

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nicole Kidman face-on was nowhere in that trailer! Did we even spy her face for longer than 2 secs? We saw her back, her hair, her hand... very, very odd promo. And not a good sign.

She does try to get Lucille Ball's vocal cadence, but it's not as raspy as Ball's voice was, and I can still hear a touch of Nicole's Australian.

And it's not just NK. Javier Bardem in this trailer is basically Bardem in spectacles. 

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Even her cadence is off to me, so I didn't even need to see her face. I have seen some 'stills' from the film and wasn't liking what I saw there either. I did see a bit of Bardem and am skeptical of him as well. The story is not just about Lucille Ball, it's about both Ball and Desi Arnaz.

Hollywood today is not really about giving chances to anyone, let alone new actors. Making money supersedes everything, Hollywood wants the "sure thing". In the old studio system in the days of Louis B. Mayer, etc. under the old Hollywood boss hierarchy, actors were contracted to a studio, where they'd keep a so-called stable of talent in reserve for projects, including "fresh faces". That wasn't a very good system either because it wasn't very humane. Some actors would be fortunate enough to get meaningful work and breakout success, while others would practically languish waiting for their opportunity to be in a starring or even good supporting role. In the meantime, the studio practically "owned" them, which means they were tethered to that studio and had to refuse work if it emerged from elsewhere, unless an even more powerful studio boss could extract them out of their contract. Even Leigh herself would go on to have problems with depression and many have speculated much of that depression (the part that didn't have to do with personal and romantic difficulties) had to do with feeling the constraints of that studio system.

But I digress (a lot, sorry).

If nothing else, I wish the casting call would have been more "open". It's obvious to me that Kidman and Bardem had their names practically tattooed on the title roles. 

What a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy