Log in

No account? Create an account
06 July 2010 @ 01:54 am
I blame the films ...  
SOME otherwise attractive, amusing and intelligent flistees of mine have been impugning the studliness of the lovely Arthur Weasley! And look, I get it, they're young. They have this thing in their heads that says 40+ is old and dull. I dare say that I thought that way, once. And the films do not help. Mark Williams is a fine character actor, but he is not the greatest looker in the world, and he does give the role a bit of a fuddy duddy edge.

But think about what we know of Arthur in the books: he has seven children, across ten-odd years, so clearly he goes like the clappers. His children are all attractive, with at least one, Bill, being wildly good looking. He's brave, having spent his twenties and then his forties battling the evil that is Voldemort even though he could easily have hidden behind his blood status. And he's romantic, falling in love with Molly and with Muggle tech, and with the idea of a better wizarding world.

When we meet him, he's 41, and at the close of canon, he's 48. I'm 43, and Mr Brammers is 41, George Clooney is 49. All eminently shaggable, let me tell you!

In conclusion, let me suggest that the films have given people a misleading mental image of Arthur Weasley, just as they have of thirtysomething Harry and Draco, and twentysomething James and Lily. Rather than thinking of the lovely but not so studly Mark Williams ...

think instead of 45-year-old David Wenham ... or going-on-40-year-old Paul Bettany.

Admit it: you'd go there.
Kieranfilmatleven on July 5th, 2010 03:58 pm (UTC)
I'd go there without a doubt - especially with Paul Bettany.
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:03 pm (UTC)
That is because you have good taste! And Molly is a woman of standards, Arthur had to impress her something fierce!
Darry Willisnursedarry on July 5th, 2010 04:01 pm (UTC)
LOL! David is my avatar for Charlie, since I was stamped as him over on HiH.

Great minds...
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:02 pm (UTC)
HEE! Though Charlie is 20 years younger -- he'll grow up well!
scabbyfishscabbyfish on July 5th, 2010 04:01 pm (UTC)
<3 Everything you said; Arthur deserves far more love!
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:04 pm (UTC)
Obviously no one could ever touch him because Molly would AK them, but we can all admire from a distance!
(no subject) - scabbyfish on July 5th, 2010 04:52 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Kerryblazekerryblaze on July 5th, 2010 04:02 pm (UTC)
I'll admit it.
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:04 pm (UTC)
(It was the Bettany in a towel, wasn't it ;-)

And now I realise it is a pair of shorts. It's better as a towel ...

Edited at 2010-07-05 04:26 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - kerryblaze on July 5th, 2010 04:42 pm (UTC) (Expand)
And I Am Telling Youant3ka on July 5th, 2010 04:03 pm (UTC)
Oh, yes. I'd go there. David Wenham is now my canon!Arthur. \o/
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:05 pm (UTC)
Hurrah! See, the minute you let book!verse over-rule film-verse, most things are prettier!
(Deleted comment)
Potteresque Irepotteresque_ire on July 5th, 2010 04:06 pm (UTC)
I think part of the trouble is that when the first film was cast called, it wasn't clear how old the prev-gen characters were yet. Snape was only in his 30s as well. I think the way they've cast that generation is to make everyone look around late 40s to 50s, which is on par with parents with teenage kids these days. While there are men who look mighty fine as they age, most men don't hold up as well when the late 40s strike.

Although, maybe they just have issues with matching age with looks. The epilogue thing is still making me *facepalm* not so much because their appearance isn't flattering but because they make them look so old...
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:10 pm (UTC)
I think the casting for the film's older generation was just generally crazed. We knew, for example, that Lily and James were in their early 20s when they died, but the Mirror of Erised had them looking late 30s at best. Same with Snape, who should have been early 30s, but they went for the much older Alan Rickman. And look, I have friends who had a hard life, but seriously? Twenty years?

So it came as no surprise when they had everyone looking so horrid in the epilogue. Clearly the casting director is 14 and thinks everyone over 17 is gross!

(no subject) - potteresque_ire on July 5th, 2010 04:15 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - blamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:26 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - potteresque_ire on July 5th, 2010 05:17 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - inamac on July 5th, 2010 08:19 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Cheryl Dysondysonrules on July 5th, 2010 04:07 pm (UTC)
Paul Bettany UNF UNF UNF x ten billion.

I've always had a thing for younger guys, though. :D

But yeah, movie Arthur ruined Arthur Weasley for me, definitely. Although some artist recently drew a gorgeous porn pic of Arthur and Molly. It was lovely. Can't remember who it was now... *ponders*
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:13 pm (UTC)
I admit that the lovely Bradley James, for example, should be admired at length. But this does not detract from the beauty that is Bettany! And Bettany has had over a decade more to practise in! Consider the lengths of experience Arthur Weasley could possess! (If you look at the Bettany pic for long enough, he will replace movie!Arthur in your mind FOREVER!)
Loyaulte Me Lie: arthurshocolate on July 5th, 2010 04:09 pm (UTC)
Arthur Weasley is obviously sexy!!

ETA : I once had a review of a Harry/Ron that said : omg, are 40-year-old Harry and Ron going to have sex???

I rolled my eyes so hard they ached!

Edited at 2010-07-05 04:10 pm (UTC)
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:14 pm (UTC)
That reviewer's mind could be broken if you wrote them going at it at 80. Go on, you know you want to!
Geoviki: animals - zebras heegeoviki on July 5th, 2010 04:11 pm (UTC)
Mmmm. I agree! And David kinda looks like my husband, and I'd tap that...
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:16 pm (UTC)
So, you were keen on having a meet-up at some point, if I recall correctly. We should bring the lads ... Just to hang (ogle) ...
maggiemarguerite_26 on July 5th, 2010 04:11 pm (UTC)

This post is made of WIN. But I'm afraid I just cannot see Arthur Weasley as hot, just as I cannot see Molly Weasley as hot and not because she is old but just... the movies and Harry's POV of them are totally, totally unsexy. I don't think I can ever get passed that.

HOWEVER, if either of those two lovely gents had been cast (and shown shirtless) in the movies, I would have possibly adopted a new OTP. :D
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:18 pm (UTC)
Come on, Maggie, you got past the idea of Draco being pointy and appalling, because you were able to find the subtext ... it's the same here, save that Arthur is more canonically a stud!

And if they had cast Paul Bettany, I would like the movies SO much more ...
(no subject) - marguerite_26 on July 5th, 2010 04:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - blamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:20 pm (UTC)
Leering is the appropriate response!
(Deleted comment)
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:20 pm (UTC)
Bit too much towel for my liking, if I'm honest ;-) Oops! I note it's actually shorts! Should be a towel. A teeny tiny towel. That falls.

Edited at 2010-07-05 04:21 pm (UTC)
Hueyphoenixacid on July 5th, 2010 04:18 pm (UTC)
I don't mind older men, but Williams is, like you've mentioned ... not very pretty to look at. :P

WHY DIDN'T THEY GET WENHAM OR BETTANY (did you see his body in the angel movie?) TO PLAY ARTHUR INSTEAD???!
blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:19 pm (UTC)
Because whoever casts the HP films HATES PEOPLE OVER 20! Remember what happened to poor Lily and James Potter, let alone Severus!

Thank goodness they managed a good trio and a perfect Ron, or I could never have watched them at all.
(no subject) - phoenixacid on July 6th, 2010 03:17 am (UTC) (Expand)
auntpurl: no actual humorauntpurl on July 5th, 2010 04:22 pm (UTC)
Mmmm...hot ginger men...

blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:29 pm (UTC)
HEE! YUM! (I tried to fit Damien Lewis in, but couldn't find a nice shot, sadly.)
Shezanshezan on July 5th, 2010 04:22 pm (UTC)
... 40-year-old Richard Armitage...

blamebramptonblamebrampton on July 5th, 2010 04:28 pm (UTC)
He and Rupert Penry-Jones are who I will be mentally replacing the appalling aged Harry and Draco with when I see the epilogue scene! And I will be HAPPY!
(no subject) - inamac on July 5th, 2010 08:25 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Annika: Alan - Snarry 2020siria on July 5th, 2010 04:31 pm (UTC)
Those are some VERY, um, fine arguments you've got there! But I still can't quite get past movie!Arthur. (I do remember finding him much more attractive before the first movie came out, but alas, those were the days.)

(Plus, I definitely agree that a lot of characters were a little underrepresented by their respective actors. Because see, I have loved Alan Rickman since I was a kid and he was the Sheriff of Nottingham, but he is so, so much older than Snape. And maybe a little bit too comfortable-looking. But then, Harry's hair is not black, his eyes aren't green and Hermione's teeth aren't exactly buck teeth. I need to read the books again to get the movie characters our of my head. And I'll keep David Wenham in mind when I do :))
la_mariane: la_mariane by romaine24la_mariane on July 5th, 2010 04:58 pm (UTC)
Of course 40 is shag worthy (who said otherwise?). In fact, Sean Connery is still shag worthy, and well...

And anyway, speaking of Arthur, don't wizards and witches live really old? Think of Dumbledore who LOOKS decrepit but who can still move fast and fight (DOM bettle, everyone!). So 40 is pretty young there.
rickey_arickey_a on July 5th, 2010 05:18 pm (UTC)
yeah, I'd tap that.
Kareinakareina on July 5th, 2010 05:32 pm (UTC)
Nope--both short haired blokes--so not my type!
girl; obsessed: hp - owlcomplications_g on July 5th, 2010 05:47 pm (UTC)
I was so disappointed with the movie casting. As much as I like Alan Rickman, he made Snape a joke, and not in any of the right ways. In fact, a lot of the adults felt like caricatures, Molly and Arthur especially. And Dumbledore felt too frail, and then ridiculously crazy and just so wrong.

Though, as much as I think David Wenham and Paul Bettany are awesome, and I can see they're attractive, I'm just not attracted to people that much older than me. If that makes any sense? It's not that they're 'old and dull' or anything, it's just, I prefer people closer to my age. I don't know, maybe I'm over-thinking this. /o\
alisannealisanne on July 5th, 2010 05:47 pm (UTC)
Yes. Yes I would.
oceaxeoceaxe on July 5th, 2010 06:02 pm (UTC)
Good points! I see Arthur in a new light now...
κάτι τρέχει στα γύφτικα_inbetween_ on July 5th, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
You forgot something! I can*t see the photos of you and your mister anywhere. No, David won't distract me - I first saw him nude and only got to love him much later on for his personality, hah. Otherwise, yeah, duh.
Vaysh Swiftstormvaysh on July 5th, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
I love your for this post. ♥
ladyjanevaladyjaneva on July 5th, 2010 07:43 pm (UTC)
Hmm, I've a thing for women around 40. I know a couple of them who I find very attractive. Would never propose or shag them though, I'd be way too insecure in comparison with their experience and wisdom.

Sean Connery when he was 65. Sounds totally sick to me, but good god he was great looking!